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)
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?