Burcham v. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC

Filing 27

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Stay Briefing on Arbitration Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 12/30/2016. (kmb2, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY P. BURCHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:16-CV-00943-DRH-SCW

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY
LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Jeffrey P. Burcham’s
motion to stay briefing on arbitration pending appeal of the order denying his
motion to remand (Doc. 25).

Defendant, Ford Motor Credit Company LLC

opposes the motion on the ground that the plaintiff has neither attempted nor
demonstrated requisite circumstances warranting a stay of briefing (Doc. 26). For
the following reasons, the Court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion.
I. Background
On October 7, 2016, the plaintiff—individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated—moved to remand a putative class action suit against the
defendant to St. Clair County, Illinois (Doc. 16). This Court subsequently denied
the motion to remand (Doc. 23), and on December 9, the plaintiff filed a petition
for permission to appeal the order denying the motion to remand, which is still

pending Seventh Circuit review (Doc. 24). In this Court, the plaintiff now moves
to stay briefing on an arbitration issue until the Seventh Circuit rules on the
petition for permission to appeal the denial of remand, or in the alternative,
requests the grant of 30 days to conduct discovery regarding circumstances
surrounding the likelihood of arbitration (Doc. 25).
In opposition, the defendant argues that under Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440
F.3d 393, 396 (7th Cir. 2006), the plaintiff has not attempted to present any
established factors governing the grant of a stay pending appeal (Doc. 26).
II. Discussion
In plaintiff’s motion to stay briefing, it is stated that the National Arbitration
Forum (“NAF”) and the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) have declined to
entertain the defendant’s arbitration claim due to “certain inherent fairness
problems with consumer arbitration and the NAF”; and, the violation of “the due
process protocol of the AAA.” Additionally, the plaintiff points to a Consumer
Arbitration Fact Sheet that stipulates conditions under which the AAA will
administer consumer arbitrations, and further argues that no facts support the
suggestion that the defendant has contacted either the NAF or AAA in order to
request arbitration or pay the required arbitration fee.
However, the plaintiff’s assertions, whether true or not, are irrelevant as to
satisfying the burden of a party seeking a stay pending appeal. In order to obtain
a stay of briefing under the present context, there must be a demonstration of the

following: (1) the significant probability of success on the merits, (2) irreparable
harm absent a stay, and (3) a showing that grant of a stay will not injure the
opposing party and will also be in public interest. Hinrichs, F.3d at 396 (citing
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). The plaintiff’s motion is devoid
of the applicable factors under the law that the Court would utilize in determining
whether a stay pending appeal is warranted.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to stay briefing on
arbitration pending appeal of the denial of the motion to remand. In regard to
requested alternative relief, the plaintiff is advised to revisit the matter with the
magistrate at the forthcoming scheduling conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 30th day of December, 2016

Judge Herndon
2016.12.30
10:40:14 -06'00'
United States District Judge