Berkhoff vs ABM Service Corporation

Filing 14

ORDER that Defendants' 10 Motion to Stay Action Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue or in the Alternative for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that this case is stayed until t he Court enters an order on Defendants' motion to transfer venue. FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court denies Defendants' motion to transfer venue, Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 21 days from the date of the Court's order on the motion to transfer venue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10

JOHN M. BERKHOFF,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ABM SERVICE CORP., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01552-JAD-CWH
ORDER

11
12

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Action Pending Resolution of

13

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue or in the Alternative for Extension of Time to Respond to

14

Complaint (ECF No. 10), filed on September 25, 2015. Plaintiff did not file a response.

15

Defendants move to move to stay all deadlines in this case pending the Court’s resolution of

16

Defendants’ motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 9), which is set for hearing before District Judge

17

Jennifer A. Dorsey on November 20, 2015 (ECF No. 11). Defendants argue that the contract

18

between the parties contains a forum-selection clause requiring Plaintiff to bring all claims related

19

to the parties’ contract in Springfield, Illinois. Defendants further argue that they intend to file a

20

motion to dismiss, which must include a choice-of-law analysis, and that the outcome of the

21

transfer motion will dictate which jurisdiction’s choice-of-law rules apply. Defendants therefore

22

request to stay all deadlines in the case until the Court enters an order on the transfer motion. In the

23

alternative, Defendants request a 60-day extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the

24

complaint. Given that the outcome of the transfer motion will dictate which jurisdiction’s laws

25

apply in this case, the Court finds there is good cause to grant Defendants’ motion.

26

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Action Pending

27

Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue or in the Alternative for Extension of Time to

28

Respond to Complaint (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is stayed until the Court enters an order on
Defendants’ motion to transfer venue.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court denies Defendants’ motion to transfer venue,

4

Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 21 days from the date of the

5

Court’s order on the motion to transfer venue.

6
7

DATED: October 23, 2015

8
9
10
11
12

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2