Upaid Systems, Ltd. v. Rosedale Ultra Wash

Filing 43

ORDER granting 40 Motion for Reconsideration. This matter is hereby STAYED pending the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal's consideration of the related appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. Within 14 days of the Federal Circuit's ruling, the parties must file a joint status report updating this Court on the status of the related action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 6/9/21. (adc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UPAID SYSTEMS, LTD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSEDALE ULTRA WASH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-2292-KHV-GEB

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Rosedale Ultra Wash’s Motion asking
the Court to reconsider its May 18, 2021 decision lifting the stay in the above-captioned
case (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff Upaid Systems, Ltd. filed a response indicating it does not
oppose the motion, does not oppose a stay, and believes a stay is proper. (ECF No. 42 at
2.) Given the positions of the parties, the Court may grant the motion as uncontested.
Additionally, in its discretion, the Court finds reconsideration of its prior order
appropriate. District of Kansas Local Rule 7.3(b) addresses reconsideration of nondispositive rulings, despite there being no counterpart in the Federal Rules.1 Under D. Kan.
Rule 7.3(b), motions seeking reconsideration of non-dispositive orders, such as the Court's
Order lifting the stay (ECF No. 35), must be filed within 14 days after the filing of the

1

Campbell-Marshall v. JC Penny Co., No. 08-2320-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 4540465, at *1 (D. Kan.
Oct. 8, 2008) (citing Hatfield v. Bd. of County Comm'rs for Converse County, 52 F.3d 858, 861
(10th Cir. 1995)).

Order.2 Such motions seeking reconsideration of non-dispositive orders must be based
upon “(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or
(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”3 Whether to grant or deny
a motion for reconsideration is committed to the court’s discretion.4
The parties’ timely briefs indicate there existed some confusion during the May 18,
2021 status conference during which the Court determined the stay should be lifted. The
parties communicated following said conference, and although the parties disagree on the
mechanics of which party should have or could have corrected such confusion, there is now
no doubt the parties clearly wish to continue the stay. And, after review of the briefing and
reconsideration of the facts of the case, this Court finds reinstating the stay will not only
preserve the judicial economy of the Court’s time and resources, but will also preserve the
time and resources of all parties.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Rosedale Ultra Wash’s Motion
for Reconsideration (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. This matter is hereby STAYED pending
the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal’s consideration of the Card Concepts appeal5 from the
Northern District of Illinois. Within 14 days of the Federal Circuit’s ruling, the parties must
file a joint status report updating this Court on the status of the related action.

2

D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b).
Campbell-Marshall, 2008 WL 4540465, at *1 (citing D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b)).
4
Id. (citing Hancock v. Okla. City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir.1988)).
5
Upaid Systems, Ltd. v. Card Concepts, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-08150 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 10, 2017;
Judgment entered Mar. 29, 2021, ECF No. 172, 173) (Notice of Appeal filed April 27, 2021, Fed.
Cir. Case no. 21-1910).
3

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 9th day of June, 2021.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
United States Magistrate Judge

3