Moody v. Metal Supermarket Franchising America, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER staying case. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/7/2014. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

TERRANCE MOODY,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER STAYING CASE

METAL SUPERMARKET FRANCHISING
AMERICA INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.

No. C 13-5098 PJH

12
13

Defendant.
_______________________________/
On March 10, 2014, this court entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion for

14

preliminary injunction, and further ordering plaintiff to show cause as to why the case

15

should not be dismissed, as plaintiff’s asserted claims were subject to arbitration. Plaintiff

16

filed a response to the court’s order on March 24, 2014, but did not address the issue of

17

whether the court should dismiss the case. Instead, plaintiff used his response as an

18

attempt at seeking reconsideration of the court’s March 10 order, and simply re-argued

19

positions that had already been considered and rejected by the court. In doing so, plaintiff

20

violated Civil Local Rule 7-9, which requires parties to seek leave of court before filing a

21

motion for reconsideration. Because plaintiff’s response did not in any way address the

22

court’s order to show cause, it is hereby STRICKEN.

23

Defendant then filed its own response to the court’s order to show cause, requesting

24

that the court stay this action rather than dismiss it. Defendant explains that plaintiff has

25

advised the arbitrator that he is “withdrawing” from the arbitration proceedings as of April 1,

26

2014. Defendant also attaches a letter from plaintiff, which confirms that plaintiff is

27

“withdrawing from participation in the [] arbitration until such time as the matter in the

28

Northern District of California is finally decided, including the conclusion of any appeals

1

process.” See Dkt. 49-1 at 1. Defendant expects to receive an award in the arbitration

2

proceedings, and requests that “this court exercise its discretion to stay rather than dismiss

3

the pending case, so that [defendant] can seek confirmation before this court.” Based on

4

defendant’s request, the court orders that this case be STAYED. However, because

5

plaintiff has chosen not to go forward with arbitration, the court recognizes that defendant

6

may file a motion to compel arbitration. If defendant does so, the stay will be lifted for that

7

limited purpose. If defendant wishes to file such a motion, it must notify the court of its

8

intention to do so by April 18, 2014.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Finally, defendant requests that the court sanction plaintiff based on his violation of
Civil Local Rule 7-9. The court will consider that request after the stay in this case is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2014

13

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2