Houlihan's Restaurants, Inc. v. Schrimpf et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 8 Defendants' Motion to Stay Case; finding as moot 10 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; granting in part and denying in part 24 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants' deadline to file an answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint is extended to 2/13/2012. No further extensions will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 1/25/2012. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

HOULIHAN’S RESTAURANT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY SCHRIMPF, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-2568-CM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to stay (Doc. 8) and to extend
the time to file an answer (Doc. 10 & 24). As explained below, the motion to stay shall be
DENIED and the motion for an extension of time shall be GRANTED IN PART.

Motion to Stay Case
In July, 2011, plaintiff filed an action against defendants in the District Court of
Johnson County, Kansas alleging that two former employees violated confidentiality
agreements and misappropriated trade secrets and other confidential information. In October
2011, plaintiff moved to dismiss the state court action without prejudice and filed this action
in federal court with additional allegations of copyright violations. Defendants move for a
stay in this case pending dismissal of the state case.
A stay maybe appropriate under certain circumstances when the parties are litigating

similar issues in a state court case in order to preserve judicial resources. However, this is
not such a case because the state judge granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss on November
8, 2011 and unequivocally expressed his intent that the federal case proceed with discovery
and on the merits. (Transcript of proceedings before the Honorable Gerald T. Elliot, Doc.
20-1, p. 33). The state court case has not been formally dismissed because defendants (1)
apparently do not agree with the wording of plaintiff’s draft order of dismissal and (2) have
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for attorney fees.
The remaining issues in the state court case do not address the merits of the claims in federal
court and a stay simply delays resolution of the federal case. Accordingly, defendants’
motion for a stay shall be DENIED.

Motion for an Extension of Time
Defendants move for an extension of time to February 13, 2011 to answer or
otherwise respond to plaintiff’s amended complaint, arguing that the state court judge “has
not ruled on any of the pending [state court] matters and has not yet set a hearing date on
those matters.” For the reasons stated above concerning defendants’ motion for a stay, this
court is not persuaded that further delay in the federal case is warranted. Accordingly, the
court will extend defendants’ deadline to answer to February 13, 2012 but no further
extensions shall be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for a stay (Doc. 8) is
-2-

DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for an extension of time (Doc.
24) is GRANTED IN PART and defendants’ deadline to file an answer or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint is extended to February 13, 2012. No further extensions
will be granted. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (Doc. 10) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 25th day of January 2012.

S/ Karen M. Humphreys
_______________________
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-