Opinion
No. C 06-7082 CW.
January 24, 2007
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff ISCO Industries, LLC, moves to stay all proceedings in this case pending the resolution of its motion to vacate the Western District of Kentucky court's order transferring the case to this Court. Defendants North Bay Construction and Steve Geney oppose the motion. The matter was taken under submission on the papers. Having considered the parties' papers and the evidence cited therein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to stay.
As stated in the Court's earlier order, in November, 2006, the case was transferred to this Court by a Western District of Kentucky Court. Defendants filed their answer and a crossclaim on December 7, 2006. Plaintiff filed its answer to the crossclaim on December 27, 2006. Plaintiff informs the Court that it has filed in the Kentucky court a motion to vacate the Kentucky court's order transferring the case to this Court. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to have the proceedings in this Court stayed pending the Kentucky court's decision on the motion to vacate.
Plaintiff's primary argument in its motion to stay is that the "situation is similar to having overlapping lawsuits in multiple courts." Motion at 3. However, as Defendants point out, there are no overlapping lawsuits. There is only one suit at issue here. Therefore, if the Kentucky court vacates its order transferring the case to this Court, the case can be returned to the Kentucky court at whatever stage it is in at that time. There is no danger that the Kentucky court will issue an order that contradicts an order of this Court.
The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed another suit in the Sonoma County Superior Court based on the same factual basis and legal claims. Defendants answered and cross-complained against Plaintiff in that suit and filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the suit. Plaintiff then moved to stay that suit, pending the decision of the Kentucky court on the transfer of this case. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to stay the suit is currently pending before the state court.
Further, the only dates currently set before this Court relate to initial disclosures, the creation of a case management statement and an initial case management conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That rule applies in the Kentucky court as it does here. Therefore, any disclosures made or case management statement created can carry equal weight if the case is transferred back to the Kentucky court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings (Docket No. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.