Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd et al v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. et al

Filing 102

ORDER granting 92 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 5/27/11. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
a/k/a KAWASAKI JUKPGYO,
KABUSHIKI KAISHA and KAWASAKI
MOTORS MANUFACTURING CORP.,
U.S.A.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL
PRODUCTS INC., BRP U.S., INC.,
BANK OF MONTREAL (in the capacity
as administrative agent) HARRY
MARCUS and ROBERT GOETHALS,
Defendants.

No. 10-0641-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
I. Introduction and Background
Pending before the Court is defendants’ joint motion for stay pending
appeal (Doc. 92). Specifically, defendants argue (1) that the Court does not have
jurisdiction to proceed with respect to the claims that will be before the Seventh
Circuit while the appeal is pending; (2) that the BRP defendants’ appeal is neither
frivolous nor taken for the purpose of delay; and (3) that judicial economy requires
a stay of the proceedings while the appeal is pending. Plaintiffs filed their response
on May 24, 2011 (Doc. 98). Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay regarding their claims
against Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., and BRP, US, Inc. (collectively
Page 1 of 3

“BRP”) (Doc. 98). However, plaintiffs do oppose a stay regarding their claims against
the other defendants. Based on the following, the Court stays this matter pending
appeal.
On May 5, 2011, the Court denied the BRP defendants’ motion to
dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, or alternative, to stay plaintiffs’ action pending
arbitration (Doc. 80). Subsequently, the BRP defendants, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §
16(a), appealed the Court’s Order on May 13, 2011 (Doc. 90). That same day, the
defendants jointly filed the motion to stay pending appeal (Doc. 92).
Since there is no dispute as a stay regarding the claims against the BRP
defendants, the Court finds that a stay is proper and stays the claims against the BRP
defendants pending appeal. Therefore, the Court must determine whether a stay is
proper as to the remaining claims. Defendants argue that because the claims against
the Bank of Montreal, Harry Marcus and Robert Goethals arise out of and relate to
the settlement agreement judicial efficiency requires a stay of these claims as well.
Plaintiffs request that the Court deny the stay and permit fact discovery against these
defendants during the appeal. Plaintiffs contend that these defendants do not have
a role in the appeal and that regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the claims
against non-signatory parties will remain.
A movant does not have an absolute right to a stay. Instead, the movant
bears the burden of proof to show that the Court should exercise its discretion in
staying the case. Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, LLC, —
U.S.—, 129 S. Ct. 2275, 2277 (2009). “The power to stay a case is ‘incidental to

Page 2 of 3

the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’ ”
Walker v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 05-cv-360-DRH, 2005 WL 1565839 at *2 (S.D.
Ill. June 22, 2005) (Herndon, J.) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299
U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “In considering a motion for stay, courts consider both the
interest of judicial economy and the potential prejudice or hardship to the parties.”
Id. (citation omitted).
Here, based on the allegations contained in the complaint, the Court
finds that a stay as to all claims pending appeal is warranted. A stay will avoid
piecemeal litigation and promote judicial efficiency. Further, the Court finds that a
stay will not unduly prejudice or produce hardships on any of the parties.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay. The Court STAYS
this matter pending the appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 27th day of May, 2011.
Digitally signed by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2011.05.27 14:45:38
-05'00'

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3