Cross Link, Inc. v. Salt River Construction Corporation

Filing 23

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT STAY ACTION. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/9/16. Show Cause Response due by 12/23/2016. Opposition to Response due by 1/6/2017.(jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 CROSS LINK, INC. DBA WESTAR MARINE SERVICES, Petitioner, 9 v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 SALT RIVER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Case No. 16-cv-05412-JSW ORDER VACATING HEARING AND ORDER TO SHOW WHY COURT SHOULD NOT STAY ACTION Re: Dkt. No. 1 Respondent. 13 14 This matter is scheduled for a hearing on December 16, 2016 to consider the petition to 15 confirm an arbitration award. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal 16 authority, and the record in this case. The Court finds the petition can be resolved without oral 17 argument, and it VACATES the hearing. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 18 However, the parties’ papers show that Respondent has filed a case in Marin County 19 Superior Court, which seeks declaratory relief on the issue of whether it agreed to arbitrate the 20 dispute that give rise both to that litigation and to the arbitration award at issue in this case. 21 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 22 control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 23 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The exertion of this 24 power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 25 1962). The Court considers a number of factors in deciding whether to grant a stay, including 26 “possible damage which may result from granting a stay,” the hardship or inequity that may result 27 if a party is required to go forward, and “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 28 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to 1 2 res from a st sult tay.” CMAX Inc., 300 F.2d at 268. X, F The Co HEREBY ORDERS the parties t show cau why this case should not be ourt Y S to use 3 stayed in favor of the pend r ding state cou litigation based on th Court’s in urt n he nherent autho ority or for 4 any other legal reasons that might justi a stay. y l ify 5 The par rties shall fil simultaneo briefs to respond to this Order to Show Cause by no le ous o o 6 late than Dece er ember 23, 20 016. The par rties may res spond to the opposing pa e arty’s argum ments by no 7 late than Janua 6, 2017. There shall be no replie unless ord er ary l es dered by the Court. Onc the Court ce 8 has received th briefs rela s he ating to the is ssue of the s tay, the Cou shall deem both matte urt m ers 9 sub bmitted, and it will issue a written ru e uling in due c course. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: Decemb 9, 2016 ber ___ __________ ___________ __________ ________ JEF FFREY S. W WHITE Un nited States D District Judg ge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?