Dynamic Intl of Wisconsin Inc v. SMEC Co Ltd

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/18/2018 DENYING without prejudice 24 Plaintiff's Rule 7(h) Expedited, Non-Dispositive Motion to Stay Arbitration Proceedings Pending Disposition of Parties' Competing Motions. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DYNAMIC INT’L OF WISCONSIN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 18-cv-582-pp
v.
SMEC CO., LTD., et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL L.R. 7(H) EXPEDITED,
NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
PENDING THE COURT’S DISPOSITION OF THE PARTIES’
COMPETING MOTIONS (DKT. NO. 24)
______________________________________________________________________________
The parties have stipulated to a briefing schedule for defendant SMEC’s
motion to compel arbitration (dkt. no. 14) and the plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (dkt. no. 21). Under
that agreement, briefing will be completed on November 9, 2018. Dkt. No. 23.
The parties filed this stipulation on October 5, 2018. Only four days
later, the plaintiff filed this expedited motion, asking the court to stay
arbitration (even though that is exactly what it requested in its motion for a
TRO and preliminary injunction). Dkt. No. 24. The impetus for this odd motion
appears to be the fact that, at the defendants’ request, the Korean Commercial
Arbitration Board (“KCAB”) has ruled that it has jurisdiction, and has required
the parties to prepare a scheduling order of sorts, called a procedural order.
Dkt. No. 24 at ¶1. The plaintiff asked defendant SMEC to stipulate to stay the
KCAB proceedings until this court could rule on the pending motions, but
1

SMEC refused, and the KCAB refused to stay the proceedings. Id. at ¶5. The
plaintiff provided the court with a draft of the KCAB procedural order; as of
October 9, 2018 (the date the plaintiff docketed the draft), the draft order
contemplated that the plaintiff would have to file pleadings in the KCAB
proceeding by January 4, 2019. Dkt. No. 25-1 at 1. Apparently the parties were
to finalize the procedural order by October 15, 2018. Dkt. No. 25 at ¶6. (The
only version of the procedural order the court has seen is the draft at Dkt. No.
25-1, so it does not know whether the parties completed a final order, or if any
final order contained the same schedule as the proposed order.)
The court will deny the Rule 7(h) motion. By separate order, the court
will schedule a hearing on the parties’ substantive motions; it plans to hold the
hearing in November. That should be soon enough for the parties to have the
court’s ruling in advance of the date that the plaintiff would have to file
anything before the KCAB—at least, under the schedule in the draft procedural
order. If the court is wrong, and there is some requirement that the plaintiff file
something with the KCAB before the November date the court will provide, the
plaintiff can renew its motion.

2

The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s Civil L.R. 7(h)
Expedited Non-Dispositive Motion to Stay Arbitration Proceedings Pending the
Court’s Disposition of the Parties’ Competing Motions. Dkt. No. 24.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 18th day of October, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3