Viracon, Inc. v. J&L Curtain Wall LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 20 Motion Defendant's Motion to Stay; Staying further briefing and cancelling the motion hearing on 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 01/24/13. (kll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Viracon, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 12-2566 (RHK/JJK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
v.
J&L Curtain Wall LLC d/b/a J&L
Curtainwall LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Consideration of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20). For the reasons that
follow, Defendants’ Motion will be granted.
This is a contract action in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay for
more than $1 million worth of custom “Insulated Glass Units” it had manufactured for
them. Plaintiff commenced this action in September 2012 in the Steele County,
Minnesota District Court, and Defendants timely removed the action to this Court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction. They then moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and improper venue, or in the alternative to transfer this action to the
Southern District of New York. The Motion was originally scheduled to be heard on
December 7, 2012, but because of calendar conflicts with counsel and with the Court, it
was rescheduled to February 22, 2013.

On January 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. At
the same time, however, it moved for partial summary judgment on certain of its claims,
noticing its Motion for a hearing on the same date as the hearing on the Motion to
Dismiss: February 22, 2013. This would require the parties to brief the jurisdictional
issue while simultaneously briefing the case on the merits. As a result, Defendants now
ask the Court to stay the summary-judgment Motion pending resolution of their Motion
to Dismiss.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay is well-taken. Absent jurisdiction, the [C]ourt “cannot
proceed at all.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (citation
omitted). The jurisdictional question, therefore, must be resolved before the Court
considers the summary-judgment Motion. Moreover, if the Court determines that it lacks
jurisdiction (or that venue is improper), this action will be dismissed and briefing on
summary judgment will have been a fruitless exercise. It would therefore be inefficient
(and potentially wasteful) for the parties to brief summary judgment while the Motion to
Dismiss is pending.
Furthermore, it has long been recognized that summary judgment “is proper only
after the non-movant has had adequate time to engage in discovery.” Stanback v. Best
Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999); accord, e.g., Nolan v.
Thompson, 521 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2008); Robinson v. Terex Corp., 439 F.3d 465,
467 (8th Cir. 2006). Here, this case is in its infancy, Defendants have not yet filed their
Answers, no scheduling conference has been held, and discovery apparently has not been

-2-

undertaken. Accordingly, the Court believes that addressing summary judgment at this
early juncture would be inappropriate.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. Further briefing on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is STAYED pending further Order
of the Court, and the hearing on that Motion is CANCELED. For the sake of clarity, this
means that the Court will only consider Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (or
transfer) at the February 22 hearing.
Dated: January 24, 2013

s/Richard H. Kyle
RICHARD H. KYLE
United States District Judge

-3-