GARCIA et al v. TEMPOE, LLC et al

Filing 38

LETTER-OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/16/18. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903

SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 16, 2018
Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
The Wolf Law Firm LLC
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
Gibbons P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Defendant
LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:

Garcia, et al. v. TEMPOE, LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-2106 (SDW) (LDW)

Counsel:
Before this Court is Plaintiffs Alicia Garcia and Priscila Dominguez’s (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) letter request to stay this action pending their petition before the Third Circuit for
leave to appeal this Court’s December 19, 2017 Order. (ECF No. 35) This Court, having
considered the parties’ submissions, and having reached its decision without oral argument
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and for the reasons discussed below, DENIES
Plaintiffs’ request for a stay.
DISCUSSION
This Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual background and procedural
history in this matter and thus will summarize only those facts relevant to the instant letter request.
On December 19, 2017, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre’s Report and
Recommendation, which denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 32.) Thereafter, on
December 22, 2017, Defendant TEMPOE, LLC (“TEMPOE” or “Defendant”) filed a Motion to
Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss. (ECF No. 33.) On January 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition
with the Third Circuit, seeking leave to appeal the Order that denied remand. (ECF No. 35.) By

letter dated January 3, 2018, Plaintiffs requested a stay pending their petition before the Third
Circuit. (Id.) TEMPOE objected on January 4, 2018. (ECF No. 36.)
A stay pending appeal is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “rarely granted[.]” Alpha
Painting & Constr. Co., Inc. v. Del. River Port Auth. of Pa. & N.J., No. 16-5141, 2016 WL
9281362, at *1-2 (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2016) (citing Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec’y of U.S.
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-1144, 2016 WL 1277419, at *1 (3d Cir. 2013)). In this
case, there is no appeal pending, only a petition for leave to appeal. This Court finds no basis to
stay litigation during the pendency of the petition. Plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable harm by
resolving matters that are not being appealed. Regardless of whether litigation proceeds in state
or federal court, the parties will invariably need to address the arbitration provision and engage in
discovery proceedings.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ request to stay the action is DENIED. An
appropriate Order follows.
/s/ Susan D. Wigenton
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J

Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Leda Dunn Wettre, U.S.M.J.

2