Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Huddle House, Inc.

Filing 40

ORDER denying as moot 36 Motion to Stay; granting 38 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 9/9/2021. (jtm)

Case: 4:20-cv-00184-DMB-JMV Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/09/21 1 of 3 PageID #: 251

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 4:20-cv-184-DMB-JMV

HUDDLE HOUSE, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

On August 24, 2021, Huddle House filed a motion seeking to further stay this patent
infringement case or, alternatively, continue trial. Nine days later, the parties filed a joint motion
to stay this case pending a ruling on Hawk Technology’s motion to dismiss in a related case in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, DTiQ Technologies, Inc. v. Hawk
Technology Systems, LLC, No. 20-2050 (“Nevada Action”). For the reasons explained below,
the parties’ joint motion to stay will be granted and Huddle House’s earlier motion to stay or
continue trial will be denied as moot.
I
Procedural History
On October 21, 2020, Hawk Technology filed a complaint against Huddle House in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, alleging that Huddle House
infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,499,091 by using the video surveillance system services of nonparty DTiQ. Doc. #1; Doc. #1-2 at PageID 20–21; Doc. #1-3 at PageID 49. On January 21,
2021, Huddle House filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss this case, arguing ineligible patent
subject matter. Doc. #9.
On March 11, 2021, Huddle House filed a motion to stay this case pending the resolution
of the motion to dismiss in the Nevada Action. Doc. #27. On May 3, 2021, after the motion to

Case: 4:20-cv-00184-DMB-JMV Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/09/21 2 of 3 PageID #: 252

stay was fully briefed, 1 United States Magistrate Judge M. Virden granted the motion in part,
finding that “resolution of the Nevada Action will likely resolve most, if not all, of the main
issues in this case.” Doc. #32 at 6. But Judge Virden declined to stay the case indefinitely as to
not “inordinately delay these proceedings,” instead staying the case until the earliest of 90 days,
a ruling on Hawk Technology’s motion to dismiss in the Nevada Action, or a ruling by this Court
on Huddle House’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 5, 7.
Ninety days later, the stay was lifted. Doc. #33. However, the motion to dismiss in the
Nevada Action remained unresolved. Doc. #39 at 1.
On August 24, 2021, Huddle House filed a renewed motion to stay the proceedings or,
in the alternative, continue the June 20, 2022, trial date. Doc. #36. On September 2, 2021, the
parties filed a joint motion to stay the case, including all case deadlines, until resolution of the
motion to dismiss in the Nevada Action. Doc. #38. In the memorandum accompanying the joint
motion, 2 Huddle House withdrew as moot its renewed motion to stay. Doc. #39 at 1.
II
Discussion
The parties assert that good cause exists to renew the stay “to preserve significant
resources among the parties and of this Court while awaiting a ruling [in the Nevada Action]
which … could have a material impact upon the present proceedings.”

Doc. #39 at 1.

Additionally, the parties represent that a stay would afford them additional time to continue their
settlement negotiations which, if successful, may fully resolve this case. Id.
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Here, there is good cause

1

Docs. #28, #29, #31.

2

The memorandum fails to cite any law supporting the relief sought.

2

Case: 4:20-cv-00184-DMB-JMV Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/09/21 3 of 3 PageID #: 253

to stay this case until a ruling on Hawk Technology’s motion to dismiss in the Nevada Action.
A stay would not only conserve the resources of the Court and the parties but allow the parties
to continue their attempts to resolve the matter without judicial intervention. See Landis v. N.
Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time
and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).
Accordingly, the joint motion to stay [38] is GRANTED and Huddle House’s earlier
motion to stay [36] is DENIED as moot. This case is STAYED pending the resolution of Hawk
Technology’s motion to dismiss in the Nevada Action. The parties are DIRECTED to notify
the Court of the ruling on Hawk Technology’s motion to dismiss in the Nevada Action within
seven (7) days of such ruling.
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of September, 2021.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3