Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. American Metal Group, Inc., et al.,
Filing
84
ORDER DENYING 63 Motion to Stay, Resolving 65 Objection to 58 ; ADOPTING 58 Report and Recommendations re 52 Joint Discovery Letter Brief and CONTINUING Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 3/31/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/7/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 17, 2017. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
v.
HOWARD MISLE, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendants.
Case No. 16-cv-03614-JSW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY;
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
JOINT LETTER BRIEF; AND
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 58, 63, 65
12
13
14
15
Now before the Court for consideration are: (1) the Report and Recommendation issued by
16
Magistrate Judge Kim regarding a dispute about whether discovery should be stayed (the
17
“Report”); (2) the objections to the Report filed by Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. (“SSI”)
18
objections to the Report; and (3) SSI’s motion to stay all aspects of this case pending resolution of
19
Misle v. Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., No. 15-cv-6031-JSW (the “Related Case”).
20
The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this
21
case, and the parties appeared for a hearing on February 17, 2017. For the reasons set forth below,
22
the Court HEREBY DENIES SSI’s motion to stay this case in its entirety. The Court HEREBY
23
ADOPTS Judge Kim’s recommendation that discovery be limited to the parties’ priorities of
24
entitlement to the escrow funds.
25
BACKRGOUND
26
This is an interprleader action which arises out of a dispute over funds (“Escrow Funds”)
27
that had been held in escrow by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) pursuant to an
28
Escrow Agreement executed by Defendant Howard Misle (“Misle”), Defendant Schnitzer Steel
1
Industries, Inc. (“SSI”), and Wells Fargo. The Court set forth the background that gave rise to this
2
litigation in its Order denying a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants, Nico Alloy, Inc., Larry
3
Levine and Denyse MacMillan (collectively “Judgment Creditors”), and it shall not repeat those
4
facts here. (See Dkt. No. 25.)
On February 15, 2017, the Court granted, in part, the motion for discharge and attorney’s
5
6
fees and costs filed by Wells Fargo. (Dkt. No. 82.) Thus, this case will proceed to the second
7
phase of an interpleader dispute, namely “a determination of the respective rights of the
8
claimants.” Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 610 F.3d 1010, 1024 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and
9
citation omitted). The Related Case, which also involves a dispute over the Escrow Funds,
10
currently is set to go to trial on May 8, 2017.
On December 9, 2016, the parties submitted a joint letter brief, in which they raised a
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
dispute about whether discovery in this case should be stayed pending resolution of the Related
13
Case. SSI argued discovery in this case should not proceed until the Related Case is resolved,
14
because it is seeking all or substantially all of the Escrow Funds. Therefore, according to SSI, if it
15
prevails in the Related Case, this case will be moot.
16
Misle, and Defendant American Metals Group, Inc. and Defendant Cornerstone Nevada,
17
LLC (collectively the “Misle Defendants”)1 also argued that discovery should be stayed until the
18
Related Case is resolved. However, they proposed, in the alternative, that if discovery is not
19
stayed, it should be limited to all parties’ priority of entitlement to the Escrow Funds. (Dkt. No.
20
52, Joint Letter Brief at 2-3.) The Judgment Creditors argued discovery should proceed without
21
limitations. (Id. at 3-5.)
On December 20, 2016, Judge Kim issued the Report, in which she recommended that the
22
23
request to stay be denied but recommended that discovery proceed on the priorities in entitlements
24
to the Escrow Funds. Judge Kim also recommended the Judgment Creditors be provided copies of
25
the Escrow Agreement as well as the Asset Purchase Agreement that is at issue in the Related
26
Case. (Dkt. No. 58, Report at 2:2-16.) The Report also recommends that the Misle Defendant’s
27
28
1
The Court refers to the Misle Defendants collectively for the sake of convenience.
2
1
request for 75 interrogatories be denied. (Id.)
2
On December 22, 2016, SSI filed its motion to stay, in which it repeats its argument that
3
because, in its view, it is likely that the Related Case will moot this action, the Court should stay
4
this matter in its entirety. On January 3, 2017, SSI objected to the Report, and argued the Court
5
should not resolve the Report until it resolved the motion to stay. (Dkt. No. 65.)
The parties in both cases are scheduled to appear for a settlement conference with
6
7
Magistrate Judge Westmore on February 22, 2017.
ANALYSIS
8
9
10
A.
The Court Denies the Motion to Stay the Case.
SSI moves to stay this case in its entirety pending resolution of the Related Case. The
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Misle Defendants do not oppose that motion. The Judgment Creditors do oppose the motion to
12
stay. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control
13
disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
14
for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The exertion of this power calls
15
for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); see
16
also Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55 (“How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment,
17
which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”) The Court considers a
18
number of factors in deciding whether to grant a stay. CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268 (citing Landis, 299
19
U.S. at 254-55). As the moving party, SSI has the burden to show a stay is warranted. See, e.g.,
20
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).
21
First, the Court considers the “possible damage which may result from granting a stay.”
22
CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. SSI has taken the position that, in addition to the indemnification claims
23
it submitted, which are the subject of the Related Case, it is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees it
24
incurs in that case and in this case. SSI also contends those fees will come from the Escrow
25
Funds. Thus, in SSI’s view, imposing a stay will prevent further depletion of the Escrow Funds
26
based on litigation in this case. SSI also argues that the Judgment Creditor’s interests are
27
protected by the Related Case, because they have filed a Notice of Judgment Lien in that case.
28
3
1
(See SSI Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1.)2 SSI also argues that the Judgment Creditors would
2
not be harmed if this case is stayed based on Misle’s position in the Related Case, which is that
3
SSI is not entitled to any of those funds.
However, the Court also must consider the disputes between the Misle Defendants and the
4
5
Judgment Creditors. It is not clear that the Related Case will fully deplete the Escrow Funds.
6
Further, even if SSI’s stake in this litigation is minimal, the Court finds the Judgment Creditors
7
would be suffer hardship by a delay in obtaining discovery on the issue of the priorities in
8
entitlement. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs against granting a stay of the
9
litigation in its entirety.
The second factor the Court considers is the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
in being required to go forward. CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. The fact that SSI and the other parties
12
might be “required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a clear case of hardship or
13
iniquity within the meaning of Landis.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir.
14
2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Apart from being required to defend against this
15
litigation and incurring additional fees, SSI does not articulate any prejudice it would suffer the
16
Court denies the stay. This factor weighs against staying the case in its entirety.
17
The third factor the Court considers is “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of
18
the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to
19
result from a stay.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. SSI argues that the Related Case will fully resolve
20
this matter and will be resolved in a matter of months. In her Report, Judge Kim noted that “there
21
is no evidence showing that the Related Case will deplete the Escrow Account.” (Report at 4:4-5.)
22
SSI argues that its claim for attorneys’ fees in this case and in the Related Case will, in fact,
23
deplete those funds. (See, e.g., Declaration of Thomas A. Woods, ¶ 6.) However, that argument
24
presumes SSI will be entitled to recover any and all attorneys’ fees it seeks in both this case and
25
the Related Case. At this point, that issue is not before the Court.
26
27
28
2
The Court grants SSI’s request to take judicial notice of that document, which is a court
record and, thus, the proper subject of judicial notice. See, e.g., Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250
F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
4
The Co finds tha this factor also does no weigh aga
ourt
at
ot
ainst staying the case in its entirety.
g
1
2
Therefore the Court DENIE SSI’s mo
C
ES
otion to stay .
3
B.
4
The Co
ourt Adopts the Report and Recom
s
t
mmendation
n.
The Co now turn to SSI’s objection to t Report. The only ob
ourt
ns
o
the
bjection SSI r
raised was
5
tha the Court should rule on the motio to stay bef
at
s
o
on
fore it ruled on the Repo It did no provide
ort.
ot
6
any substantive objections to Judge Kim recomm
y
e
m’s
mendation on the scope o the discov
n
of
very that may
y
7
pro
oceed. The Court finds the Report th
C
t
horough and well-reason and it A
d
ned,
ADOPTS Jud Kim’s
dge
8
rec
commendatio
ons. Therefo discover may proc eed in this c
ore,
ry
case but it sh be limite to the
hall
ed
9
priorities in ent
titlements to the Escrow Funds. SSI and Misle s
o
w
I
shall produc a full copy of the
ce
y
Asset Purchase Agreement and the Esc
e
t
crow Agreem to the J
ment
Judgment Cr
reditors by n later than
no
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Ma
arch 3, 2017. The Misle Defendants request tha the parties be permitte to propou up to 75
s’
at
s
ed
und
12
inte
errogatories upon comm
mencement of discovery i DENIED.
is
.
CONCLU
USION
13
14
For the foregoing re
easons, the Court DENIE the motio to stay, a it ADOPTS Judge
C
ES
on
and
15
Kim recomm
m’s
mendations re
egarding disc
covery. The Court CON
e
NTINUES th case mana
he
agement
16
con
nference in this case, cur
t
rrently set fo March 3, 2
or
2017, to Apr 7, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. The
ril
t
17
par
rties’ joint ca managem confere
ase
ment
ence stateme shall be d on Marc 31, 2017.
ent
due
ch
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Februar 17, 2017
ry
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?