Rajagopalan v. NoteWorld, LLC

Filing 54

ORDER denying 49 Motion to Lift Stay by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 AMRISH RAJAGOPALAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
NOTEWORLD, LLC,
12
Defendant.
13

CASE NO. C11-5574 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
LIFT STAY

14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Amrish Rajagopalan’s
15
(“Rajagopalan”) motion to lift stay (Dkt 49).
16
On March 6, 2012, the Court denied Defendant NoteWorld, LLC’s (“NoteWorld”)
17
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Dkt. 33. On March 19, 2012, NoteWorld filed
18
a notice of appeal of that order. Dkt. 34. On June 11, 2012, the Court stayed this action
19
pending determination of NoteWorld’s appeal. Dkt. 48.
20
On August 23, 2012, Rajagopalan filed a motion to lift the stay based on newly
21
discovered evidence. Dkt. 49. On August 31, 2012, NoteWorld responded. Dkt. 51. On
22

ORDER - 1

1 September 7, 2012, Rajagopalan replied. Dkt. 52. On October 10, 2012, NoteWorld
2 filed notice of additional authority. Dkt. 53.
3

In the Ninth Circuit, entry of a stay pending an appeal of an order to deny a motion

4 to compel arbitration is discretionary. See Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d
5 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990).
6

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and Rajagopalan’s additional evidence

7 and finds that a stay should and will remain in effect. Therefore, the Court DENIES
8 Rajagopalan’s motion to lift the stay (Dkt. 49).
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of October, 2012.

A

11
12

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2