Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07082/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISCO Industries, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-7082 CW

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

Case 4:06-cv-07082-CW Document 15 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1The 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.

2

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.1

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. 

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.

Case 4:06-cv-07082-CW Document 15 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion

to stay the proceedings (Docket No. 9). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/24/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07082-CW Document 15 Filed 01/24/07 Page 3 of 3