Marine Power Holding, L.L.C. v. Malibu Boats, LLC

Filing 27

ORDER & REASONS denying 23 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 12/15/2014. (caa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARINE POWER HOLDING, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

V.

NO. 14-2065

MALIBU BOATS, LLC

SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Malibu's motion to stay this case pending
the resolution of three undecided motions in a case between the
parties in the Eastern District of Tennessee. For the reasons that
follow, the motion to stay is DENIED.
Background
The facts of this case are recounted in this Court's previous
Order and Reasons dated November 5, 2014, and for the sake of
brevity will not be repeated here.1

In short, Malibu and Marine

Power have three ongoing lawsuits against each other: two cases in
Tennessee involving a purchase order and a third here involving a
warranty on certain engines.

There are three motions in the first

lawsuit in Tennessee on which that court has yet to rule:
(1) Motion to enjoin Marine Power from maintaining a laterfiled lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana, by Malibu

1

One fact not detailed previously but which Malibu deems
relevant is that the parties filed a joint stipulation here and in
the Eastern District of Tennessee on October 10.
In it they
implemented a remedial solution to the water intrusion issue, they
each agreed not to tell Malibu's dealers that the other's goods are
defective, and they agreed to a mechanism for processing future
engine warranty claims.
1

Boats (filed 04/30/2014);
(2) Motion to dismiss for improper venue or in the alternative
to transfer, by Marine Power (filed 05/16/2014);
(4)

Motion

to

amend

complaint,

by

Malibu

Boats

(filed

10/29/2014).
Although apparently pending for some time, none of these motions
has a hearing date.
those

motions

are

Malibu moves to have this case stayed until
ruled

upon,

believing

that

once

they

are

resolved, the three cases will likely be consolidated either here
or in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
I.
It is undisputed that "[a] district court has inherent power
'to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.'"

United States v. Colomb, 419 F.3d 292, 299 (5th Cir.

2005) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
This

inherent

proceedings."
Nonetheless,

power

includes

"broad

discretion

to

stay

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997).
because

the

authority

to

stay

is

"largely

unreviewable, it must not be abused." Coastal (Bermuda) LTD. v.
E.W. Saybolt & Co., Inc., 761 F.2d 198, 203 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985).
Thus, in deciding whether to stay proceedings, a court "must weigh
competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis, 299 U.S.
at 254–55.

A court may consider (1) any hardship imposed on the

2

moving party by proceeding with the action, (2) any prejudice to
the non-moving party if the stay is granted, and (3) the interests
of judicial economy. Strong ex rel. Tidewater, Inc. v. Taylor, No.
11–392, 2013 WL 81889, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2013); Collins v.
Angiodynamics, Inc., 13–5431, 2013 WL 5781708, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct.
15, 2013).
II.
A.
"The suppliant for a stay must make out a clear case of
hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is
even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work
damage to someone else."

Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp., 706 F.2d

541, 545 (5th Cir. 1983).

Malibu contends that it will face

hardship if this case is not stayed. Specifically, without a stay,
Malibu

would

soon

have

to

make

Rules

26(f)

disclosures

and

participate in a 26(a)(1) conference, and a scheduling order would
soon be entered.
The only case on which Malibu relies is Maples v. Donzinger,
2014 WL 688965 (E.D. La. Feb. 21, 2014), in which Judge Milazzo of
this Court stayed the case for six months.

Maples was part of a

much larger dispute (Chevron's widely known Ecuador lawsuit), and
the claims before Judge Milazzo could have been rendered moot by
the outcome of claims pending before another court.
This case is not Maples.

Id. at *2.

Whether in this Court or in the Eastern

3

District of Tennessee, the parties will have to make Rule 26(f)
disclosures and participate in a Rule 26(a)(1) conference.

As

Marine Power rightly states, changes to a scheduling order are not
uncommon and would not constitute a hardship. Moreover, an outcome
on the merits in the cases in Tennessee as they stand now2 would
not affect the claims pending here.3
B.
Marine Power contends that it would be prejudiced if this case
were stayed to the extent that its recovery for the failed engines
continues to be delayed.

This Court does not and cannot know the

length of the stay that Malibu seeks.

One of the motions before

the Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee has been fully
briefed for six months.

Assuming that the motion to amend the

complaint (the most recently filed motion) could remain pending for
at least as long, Marine Power's case could be delayed for several
months.

See Hoppie v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, No. 13-137, 2013 WL

5493004, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2013) (denying a motion to stay

2

Malibu has moved to amend its complaint in Tennessee to
include the claims asserted here. Marine Power contends that this
amendment would be improper because such claims should be addressed
in this Court under the first-to-file rule. Marine Power filed the
engine warranty claims here, and thus Malibu should respond to
these claims in this Court. This Court, however, will not parse
out this issue; the motion to amend is not pending here but rather
in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
3

For a more thorough discussion of the differences between the
cases in Tennessee and the case here, see the Court's Order and
Reasons dated November 5, 2014.
4

because the four- to six-month delay would be longer than that
found appropriate in other cases).

Because a stay could further

inhibit Marine Power's progress in the present litigation for a
significant period of time, the Court finds that the plaintiff
faces a substantial likelihood of prejudice if a stay is granted.
C.
The Court concedes that the interest of judicial economy may
well be served by staying this case.

Like the parties, this Court

too awaits a decision from the Eastern District of Tennessee as to
whether the Tennessee cases will be transferred.

But if the cases

are not consolidated and if this lawsuit remains here, this Court
would have the litigants waste time unreasonably and the Court
could have resolved this case in a timely manner.
The Court finds that any hardship Malibu will endure is
minimal and that Marine Power may be prejudiced by the unknown
length of the requested stay.

Accordingly, the motion to stay is

DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, December 15, 2014

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5