James Shackelford Heating and Cooling, LC v. AT&T CORP et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Defendants' motion to stay. Signed on 12/21/17 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Kitsmiller, Julia)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES SHACKELFORD HEATING
AND COOLING, LC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AT&T CORP, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-00663-CV-W-ODS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY
Pending is Defendants’ Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. Doc. #28. For the
following reasons, the motion is granted.
BACKGROUND1

I.

On November 21, 2017, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to compel
arbitration. Doc. #24. On December 5, 2017, Defendants, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §
16(a)(1), filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing this Court’s November 21, 2017 Order to
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Doc. #26. Contemporaneously, Defendants filed
the pending motion, which seeks a stay pending appeal. Doc. #28. Although
Defendants’ motion stated Plaintiff did not agree to the relief sought by Defendants’
motion, Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the pending motion, and the time for doing
so has passed. See L.R. 7.0(c)(2). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is ripe for
consideration.

II.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, a party may appeal a district court’s
denial of a motion to compel arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1). Defendants argue this

1

Additional background facts are set forth in the Court’s Order and Opinion dated
November 21, 2017. Doc. #24.

matter should be stayed pending their appeal because this Court lacks jurisdiction
during the pendency of the appeal.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not decided whether an appeal from a
denial of a motion to compel arbitration divests the district court of jurisdiction. But the
majority of circuit courts considering the issue have decided a notice of appeal from a
district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration divests the district court of
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Levin v. Alms & Assocs., Inc., 634 F.3d 260, 265-66 (4th Cir.
2011) (finding the district court is divested of jurisdiction when a non-frivolous appeal
under the Federal Arbitration Act is filed); Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F.3d
207, 214-15 (3d Cir. 2007); Hardin v. First Cash Fin. Servs., Inc., 465 F.3d 470, 474
(10th Cir. 2006) (same); Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1253
(11th Cir. 2004) (same); Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Comput. Network, Inc.,
128 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 1997) (same); see also Wells Enters., Inc. v. Olympic Ice
Cream, No. C11-4109, 2013 WL 11256866, at *2-3 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 1, 2013). Three
circuit courts have found the notice of appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion to
compel arbitration does not divest the district court of jurisdiction. See Weingarten
Realty Inv’rs v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904, 909-10 (5th Cir. 2011); Motorola Credit Corp. v.
Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 54 (2d Cir. 2004); Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp., 916 F.2d 1405,
1412 (9th Cir.1990). This Court finds the reasoning set forth by the majority of circuit
courts compelling, and concludes its jurisdiction is divested by Defendants’ filing of a
notice of appeal. For this reason, Defendants’ motion to stay is granted.
Even if the Court’s jurisdiction was not divested by Defendants’ filing of a notice
of appeal, the Court has the inherent power to control its trial docket and stay
proceedings in the interests of justice and judicial economy. See Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (stating “the 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.”);
Lunde v. Helms, 898 F.2d 1343, 1345 (8th Cir. 1990). At a minimum, a stay under
these circumstances will prevent waste of resources and reduce uncertainty. Until the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined whether this Court properly denied
Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, there is no reasonable justification for the

2

parties (as well as this Court) to dedicate additional resources to this matter. For this
additional reason, Defendants’ motion to stay is granted.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to stay is granted. This matter is
stayed pending the issuance of a mandate by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals with
regard to Defendants’ pending appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: December 21, 2017

3