Rinehart Racing, Inc. v. S&S Cycle, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 21 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 08/05/13. (emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:12cv397
RINEHART RACING, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
S&S CYCLE, INC.
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Stay Discovery [# 19] and Motion
to Expedite [# 21]. Defendant moves to stay discovery in this case for six months
and to reset deadlines in the Pretrial Order accordingly. In addition, Defendant
moves for expedited briefing on the Motion to Stay. The Court DENIES the
Motion to Stay [# 19] and DENIES as moot the Motion to Expedite [# 21].
I.

Analysis

Plaintiff brought this action on December 18, 2012, against Defendant
requesting a declaratory judgment. The case was assigned to United States
District Judge Martin Reidinger and was referred to this Court for pre-trial matters.
Subsequently, Defendant answered the Complaint and asserted counterclaims for
trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and unfair and

-1-

deceptive trade practices.

After the Plaintiff answered the counterclaims and,

thus, all the issues in this case had joined, the Court entered a Pretrial Order and
Case Management Plan. Accordingly, discovery in this case began on June 6,
2013. See LCvR 26.1.
Shortly after the Court issued its Pretrial Order in this case, third party Moto
Group, LLC filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment against Defendant S&S
Cycle, Inc. Defendant S&S Cycle, Inc. has not yet answered the complaint in this
separate action. Defendant contends that Moto Group, LLC is a closely related
entity to Plaintiff Rinehart Racing. This related action is not referred to this Court
for pre-trial matters.
Defendant now moves to stay discovery in this case and to extend the pretrial deadlines in this action for six months. Upon a review of the record in this
case, the Court DENIES the motion [# 19]. The Court will not stay these
proceedings for six months. The issues in this case have joined, and the parties
shall abide by the Court’s Pretrial Order. To the extent that either party wishes to
consolidate these cases, then that party should file a motion to consolidate. This
Court will not stay this case for six months to allow another case to “catch up” to
these proceedings. Either the cases will proceed separately or a party can seek to
consolidate the cases. Upon the filing of an appropriate motion and brief that

-2-

complies with the requirements of the Court’s Local Rules, either this Court or the
District Court will consider whether consolidation is appropriate.
II.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to Stay [# 19] and DENIES as moot the
Motion to Expedite [# 21].

Signed: August 5, 2013

-3-