Valley Select Foods, Inc. v. Fordel Marketing, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 VALLEY SELECT FOODS, INC., a CASE NO. 1:21-CV-0141 AWI HBK British Columbia corporation, 7 Plaintiff ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO 8 ARBITRATION, ORDER STAYING v. THE MATTER, and ORDER SETTING 9 CONDITIONAL STATUS FORDEL MARKETING, LLC, a CONFERENCE 10 California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 11 (Doc. Nos. 14, 16) Defendant 12 13 14 On June 3, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation that inter alia requested that the Court order 15 them to binding arbitration and to stay this matter pending arbitration. See Doc. No. 14. Because 16 all claims involved in this case were to be sent to arbitration, the Court ordered the parties to file a 17 supplemental brief that explained why a stay of this case was preferable to a dismissal. See Doc. 18 No. 15. 19 On June 14, 2021, the parties filed a supplemental brief that addressed the Court’s 20 concerns. See Doc. No. 16. The parties represent that they are concerned about the possibility of 21 one side not actually submitting to arbitration. See id. If that occurs, by the time a new case is 22 refiled, the applicable statute of limitations may bar the suit. See id. To ensure that all claims are 23 actually arbitrated, the parties request that the Court stay the matter until the parties effectively 24 submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by filing their initial pleadings. See id. The parties 25 estimate that this will happen well before October 2021. See id. Therefore, the parties request 26 that the Court stay this matter and set a status conference for October 2021, with the understanding 27 that the parties will file a request for dismissal within 10 days of filing their initial pleadings in 28 arbitration. See id. 1 After review, it is apparent that there are trust concerns between the parties. The Court 2 | finds it lamentable that both sides think that there is a distinct possibility that one side would 3 | violate a valid Court order in an attempt to gain an advantage from the applicable statute of 4 | limitations. It is not necessarily clear why a new lawsuit would need to be filed. Generally, “all 5 Jorders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly,” Donovan v. Mazzole, 716 F.2d 6 | 1226, 1240 (9th Cir. 1984), and the Court has authority to enforce its orders. E.g. In re Dueal- 7 | Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993); Fraihat v. United 8 | States LC.E., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94952, *12-*13 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2020). Nevertheless, the 9 | Court finds that the proposed course by the parties is not administratively onerous and appears to 10 | sufficiently assuage all atypical trust concerns between the parties. Therefore, the Court in this 11 Jinstance will issue a stay, instead of dismissal, as described in the supplemental brief. 12 ORDER 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Pursuant to the stipulation and supplemental briefing of the parties (Doc. Nos. 14, 16), the 15 parties SHALL SUBMIT to binding arbitration all claims and defenses raised and which 16 could have been raised in Plaintiff's complaint and Defendants’ amended counterclaim; 17 }2. The parties shall submit their claims to arbitration as soon as possible, but in no event later 18 than October 4, 2021; 19 }3. Pursuant to the parties’ supplemental briefing (Doc. No. 16), within ten (10) days of filing 20 their arbitration pleadings, the parties shall submit a joint request for dismissal of this case; 21 If no stipulated dismissal is received, a status conference in this case will be held on 22 October 18, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2; and 23 |5. Pursuant to the stipulation and supplemental briefing of the parties (Doc. Nos. 14, 16), this 24 case is STAYED. 25 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dp 57 Dated: __June 15, 2021 7 Zz 7 Cb Lec _-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 28 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28