Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v. SourceAmerica et al

Filing 200

ORDER: (1) Granting In Part and Denying In Part 194 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application; (2) Modifying Hearing Date and Briefing Schedule on 195 Plaintiff's Motion For Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): Responses due by 2/20/2015, Replies due by 2/27/2015. Motion Hearing Reset for 3/6/2015 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D before Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 2/4/2015. (srm)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BONA FIDE CONGLOMERATE, INC., Plaintiff, 10 11 v. CASE NO. 14cv0751-GPC-DHB ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION; 12 [Dkt. No. 194.] 13 (2) MODIFYING HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 14 15 16 SOURCEAMERICA, et al., Defendants. [Dkt. Nos. 195, 198.] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is Plaintiff Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) ex parte application to: (1) stay all proceedings in this action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); or, alternatively (2) continue Plaintiff’s February 5, 2015 deadline to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 194.) The Defendants have filed a joint opposition. (Dkt. No. 199.) For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a stay, but GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the deadline to file a second amended complaint. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this civil antitrust action against SourceAmerica and various nonprofit and for-profit entities for allegedly rigging the process through which service -1- 14cv0751-GPC-DHB 1 providers may compete for government contracts through the federal “AbilityOne 2 Program.” (Dkt. No. 128 ¶¶ 1-2, 6.) On January 6, 2015, this Court issued an order 3 (“Order”) granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss 4 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, dismissing Plaintiff’s antitrust claims without 5 prejudice, and granting Plaintiff thirty days, until February 5, 2015, to file a second 6 amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 189.) On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion 7 seeking to certify the Court’s Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 8 which the Court set for a hearing on April 10, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 195, 198.) Plaintiff 9 also concurrently filed the instant ex parte application to: (1) stay all proceedings in 10 this action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s § 1292(b) motion; or, alternatively 11 (2) continue Plaintiff’s February 5, 2015 deadline to file a second amended complaint.1 12 (Dkt. No. 194.) Defendants filed a joint opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte application.2 13 (Dkt. No. 199.) 14 15 LEGAL STANDARD “A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes 16 on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, 17 for counsel, and for litigants.” Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 18 1972) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). When considering whether 19 to stay proceedings, courts should consider “the possible damage which may result 20 from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in 21 being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of 22 the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could 23 be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 24 omitted). 25 26 1 28 2 On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff contacted Defendants regarding its stay request. (Dkt. No. 194-1 ¶ 4.) On January 29, 2015, Defendants declined to stipulate to a stay. 27 (Id.) The opposition excludes Defendant Corporate Source, Inc. because its counsel was unreachable due to an ongoing trial. (Dkt. No. 199 at 1.) -2- 14cv0751-GPC-DHB 1 If the prescribed time period has not expired, a party must show “good cause” 2 for an extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). “[R]equests for extensions of time 3 made before the applicable deadline has passed should ‘normally . . . be granted in 4 the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the 5 adverse party.’” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 6 2010) (citation omitted). 7 8 DISCUSSION Plaintiff contends that this Court should stay proceedings pending resolution 9 of its § 1292(b) motion because otherwise it will face the “Hobson’s choice” of 10 either: (1) complying with the Court’s Order and filing a second amended complaint 11 that will supersede the first amended complaint, thereby waiving appellate review of 12 the Order and mooting the § 1292(b) motion; or (2) risking involuntary dismissal if 13 it disobeys the Order. (Dkt. No. 194 at 2-4.) Alternatively, based on the same 14 reasons, the Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the February 5, 2015 deadline 15 to file a second amended complaint until 15 days after the Court enters an order on 16 Plaintiff’s § 1292(b) motion. (Id. at 4-5.) 17 Defendants respond that this Court should deny Plaintiff’s ex parte 18 application for three reasons: (1) the Court will likely deny Plaintiff’s § 1292(b) 19 motion; (2) Plaintiff does not face a “Hobson’s choice” because under the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff can either timely file a second amended complaint 21 or announce that it will stand on the first amended complaint and request entry of 22 final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b); and (3) Plaintiff’s timing is suspect because, 23 even though the Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to amend, it waited until January 27 24 to approach Defendants regarding the stay request, waited until February 3 to file its 25 ex parte application, and did not file its ex parte application until the same day that 26 Defendant SourceAmerica’s Answer was due which prevented SourceAmerica from 27 seeking a continuance. (Dkt. No. 199 at 2-3.) 28 The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that a stay is warranted, but -3- 14cv0751-GPC-DHB 1 that there is good cause to grant Plaintiff an extension for filing its second amended 2 complaint. Plaintiff filed their request before the deadline, there is no evidence of 3 bad faith by Plaintiff, and Defendants do not contend they will be prejudiced. 4 Moreover, an extension will alleviate any potential hardship to Plaintiff regarding 5 its § 1292(b) motion. 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a stay, but GRANTS 7 Plaintiff’s request to continue the deadline for filing a second amended complaint 8 until 15 days after the Court enters an order on Plaintiff’s motion for certification of 9 interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 10 However, the Court is concerned about delaying this action for too long in 11 order to consider Plaintiff’s § 1292(b) motion. Therefore, the Court modifies the 12 hearing date on Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of Order for 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 13 Interlocutory Appeal and Stay of Proceedings (Dkt. No. 195) to March 6, 2015 at 14 1:30 p.m. Defendants shall file a response on or by February 20, 2015. Any reply 15 shall be due by February 27, 2015. 16 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 (1) the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application to stay all 19 proceedings in this action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion for 20 certification of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), but 21 GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the deadline for 22 filing a second amended complaint until 15 days after the Court enters 23 an order on Plaintiff’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Dkt. No. 194); 25 (2) the Court MODIFIES the hearing date on Plaintiff’s Motion for 26 Certification of Order for 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) Interlocutory Appeal 27 and Stay of Proceedings (Dkt. No. 195) to March 6, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. 28 Defendants shall file a response on or by February 20, 2015. Any -4- 14cv0751-GPC-DHB 1 2 reply shall be due by February 27, 2015. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 DATED: February 4, 2015 5 6 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- 14cv0751-GPC-DHB

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?