Visteon Corporation v. Leuliette

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 15 Visteon's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING without Prejudice 16 Visteon's Motion to Determine Which Filings Should be Filed Under Seal; DENYING without Prejudice 23 Leuliette's Motion to Dismiss, and STAYING the Case. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION VISTEON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 16-11180 HON. TERRENCE G. BERG TIMOTHY LEULIETTE, Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER DENYING VISTEON’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. 15), DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISTEON’S MOTION TO DETERMINE WHICH FILINGS SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL (DKT. 16), DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE LEULIETTE’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 23) AND STAYING THIS CASE This is an employment dispute between Visteon and its former President and CEO Timothy Leuliette. This matter came before the Court on August 3, 2016, when the Court heard argument on several motions. As discussed in greater detail on the record during the hearing, Leuliette initiated arbitration proceedings against Visteon on February 19, 2016 – before Visteon filed this lawsuit on March 31, 2016. Having considered the briefs filed by the parties, and the oral argument presented, the Court will STAY this case pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing on August 3, 2016, Visteon’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 15) is DENIED; the Court will not stay the ongoing arbitration proceedings. Visteon’s motion to determine which filings should be filed under seal (Dkt. 16) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This question may be readdressed when the stay in this case is lifted at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. Finally, Leuliette’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 23) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The viability of the claims presented in Visteon’s first amended complaint (Dkt. 14) shall be determined after the stay in this case is lifted at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. Either party may move to lift the stay of this case at the conclusion of the arbitration, either to confirm any arbitration award that the arbitrator may issue and reduce it to a judgment, or to litigate any remaining disputes that the arbitrator determines that he or she does not have the jurisdiction to determine. This order is not a final judgment, and does not close this case. Finally, the Court will conduct a telephonic status conference in this matter on FEBRUARY 15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. During this call, the parties shall update the Court on the status of the arbitration proceedings. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF shall initiate the call and include the Court when all parties are present by calling (810) 341−9760. SO ORDERED. s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: August 5, 2016 2    Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on August 5, 2016, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. s/A. Chubb Case Manager 3   

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?