Stender et al v. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust
ORDER Defendant Archstones Motion to Reopen Case for Good Cause to Confirm Arbitration Award ECF No. 183 is DENIED; Plaintiffs Motion to Reopen Case for Good Cause ECF No. 180 is GRANTED; The Clerk shall reopen this action and the parties sha ll contact Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe to set up whatever scheduling or status conference the Judge deems necessary to assist with moving this case forward; Plaintiffs prior Motion to Reopen Case for Good Cause and for Expedited Hearing ECF No. 174 is DENIED as MOOT; Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on Request for Judicial Intervention ECF No. 175 is DENIED as MOOT; and Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 177 is DENIED AS MOOT, by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/2/2013.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02503-WJM-MJW
STEVEN A. STENDER, and
INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, on behalf of themselves and all others
ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN
On May 18, 2011, the Court administratively closed this action pending
arbitration of certain claims. (ECF No. 159; see also ECF Nos. 76, 101, 103, and 114.)
The Court ordered that the parties could move to reopen this case upon a showing of
good cause once arbitration is complete. (Id.) Pursuant to the Court's Orders, the
parties conducted the arbitration before the Arbitrator jointly retained by the parties,
Hon. Bruce W. Kauffman, former Judge of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 183.) On March 8, 2013, Judge Kauffman
rendered his final award in Defendant Archstone's favor. (Id.)
Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Case
for Good Cause (ECF No. 180); and (2) Defendant Archstone’s Motion to Reopen Case
for Good Cause to Confirm Arbitration Final Award in Archstone’s Favor (ECF No. 183).
Both Motions seek to reopen the case but vary in the purpose behind the reopening;
Defendant seeks to reopen for the limited purpose of confirming the arbitration award
while Plaintiff seeks to reopen the case in its entirety.
The Court previously ruled that Count One of Plaintiff’s original Complaint (ECF
No. 1) was subject to the arbitration clause contained in the Declaration of Trust, at
least to the extent such claim pertained to any alleged breach of the tax-deferral
provisions in the Declaration of Trust. (ECF No. 76 at 20-22.) The Court then
dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ other claims with prejudice but, upon reconsideration, ruled
that Plaintiffs would be permitted to file an amended complaint to restate their other
claims. (ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint which contains
additional causes of action which were not subject to arbitration. (ECF No. 151.)
Regardless of whether the Court confirms the arbitrator’s decision or not, these
additional causes of action remain pending in this case. Therefore, the Court finds
good cause to reopen the case in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Defendant Archstone’s Motion to Reopen Case for Good Cause to Confirm
Arbitration Award (ECF No. 183) is DENIED;
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Case for Good Cause (ECF No. 180) is GRANTED;
The Clerk shall reopen this action and the parties shall contact Magistrate Judge
Michael J. Watanabe to set up whatever scheduling or status conference the
Judge deems necessary to assist with moving this case forward;
Plaintiffs’ prior Motion to Reopen Case for Good Cause and for Expedited
Hearing (ECF No. 174) is DENIED as MOOT;
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Ruling on Request for Judicial Intervention (ECF No. 175) is
DENIED as MOOT; and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 177) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
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?