Method, LLC et al v. Make it Right Foundation et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Lift Stay and Request to Set Preliminary Pretrial Conference. Plaintiffs shall file a response to the MIR Defendants' Motion to Arbitrate 13 and any reply to the MIR Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand 22 by November 9, 2017. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/26/2017. (ASG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
METHOD, LLC, a Washington,
Limited Liability Company dba
METHOD HOMES; and METHOD
CONTRACTING, LLC, a Washington
Limited Liability Company,

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
MAKE IT RIGHT FOUNDATION, a
Delaware Corporation; MAKE IT
RIGHT-MONTANA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company;
MIR MONTANA, LLC, a purported
Montana Limited Liability Company;
MIR INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company;
MAKE IT RIGHT FOUNDATION
dbaMIRMONTANA; MIR
INNOVATIONS, LLC dba MIR
MONTANA; SAMUEL WHITT dba
MIR MONTANA; JOHN DOES 1-50;
and ABC BUSINESSES 1-20,
Defendants.
On July 27, 2017, the Court issued an order staying this case through
November 27, 2017, after the parties voluntarily agreed to attempt resolution
through binding arbitration. (Docs. 23; 24.) On September 27, 2017, Plaintiffs

-1-

filed a Motion to Lift Stay and Request to Set Preliminary Pretrial Conference.
(Doc. 25.) Defendant Samuell Whitt ("Whitt"), acting pro se, filed a response to
Plaintiffs' Motion on October 11, 2017, objecting to lifting the stay and arguing
for his dismissal as a Defendant. (Doc. 31.) Make It Right Foundation, Make It
Right-Montana, LLC, MIR Montana, LLC, MIR Innovations, LLC, Make It Right
Foundation d/b/a MIR Montana, and MIR Innovations, LLC d/b/a MIR Montana
(collectively the "MIR Defendants") filed a response on October 18, 201 7, stating
that they "do not oppose setting this matter for a status conference and do not
oppose lifting the previously-stipulated stay in order to complete briefing on their
Motion to Compel Arbitration." (Doc. 40 at 2.) For the following reasons, the
Court will lift the stay, set filing deadlines, and schedule a preliminary pretrial
conference.
The MIR Defendants do not oppose lifting the stay. (Doc. 40.) However,
Whitt opposes lifting the stay because he contends he "should not be named as a
Defendant in this matter," and maintaining the stay will better serve him by
allowing Plaintiffs and the MIR Defendants to "resolve their disputes in a manner
that does not require Whitt to continue to incur the time and expense necessary to .
. . participate in court proceedings." (Doc. 31 at 13.) Whitt's response does not
address any other reasons against lifting the stay. Plaintiffs reply that Whitt's
-2-

concerns are common "to any party to a lawsuit" but argue that "the case cannot
remain stayed forever in the hopes that the parties resolve their disputes for
Whitt's sake." (Doc. 41 at 2.) Plaintiffs argue that to the extent that Whitt's
response can be construed as either a motion to dismiss or motion for summary
judgment, such motion is not properly before the Court and is improper while the
case is stayed. (Id.) The Court agrees. Whitt has utilized his Response to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay to raise the issue of whether he should be named as
a Defendant in the case. The resolution of such an issue must be reserved until an
appropriate motion is filed with the Court at a time when such an issue may be
decided-after the stay has been lifted.
The Court will order a Preliminary Pretrial Conference in December 201 7 in
a separate order. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
( 1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and Request to Set Preliminary Pretrial
Conference (Doc. 25) is GRANTED;
(2) The STAY of this matter is lifted;
(3) Plaintiffs shall file a response to the MIR Defendants' Motion to
Arbitrate (Doc. 13) and any reply to the MIR Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand (Doc. 22) by November 9, 2017.
-3-

Dated this

2h~y of October, 2017.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-4-