Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05763/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05763-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed July 20, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MARIAN TANKERSLEY, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

JOHN R. LYNCH, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C09-05763 HRL 

INTERIM ORDER RE: DECEMBER 

16, 2009 ORDER TO STAY MATTER 

PENDING ARBITRATION 

[Re: Docket No. 8] 

Plaintiffs Marian Tankersley and Richard Diehl (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against 

John Lynch, Gregory Longe, Louis Maio, and Richard Bass (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging 

violations of Michigan franchise law. Defendants are all officers or employees of Collision on 

Wheels International LLC (“Collision on Wheels”), a Michigan-based franchisor selling mobile 

auto body repair system franchises. 

In December 2009, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation for an order staying the case 

pending the outcome of arbitration between Plaintiffs and Collision on Wheels. (Docket No. 8.) In 

its order, the Court stayed the case “until 30 days after an award is entered in the Arbitration, at 

which time Defendants will have 20 days to file a response to Plaintiffs’ complaint.” (Id. at 2.) The 

Court further ordered that the parties notify the Court when an award was entered in the arbitration. 

(Id.) 

On June 15, 2010, the Court received such notice from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs wrote that the 

arbitrator issued an “Interim Award” in Plaintiffs’ favor on June 10. Plaintiffs explained that the 

Case 5:09-cv-05763-HRL Document 11 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

arbitrator styled the award as an interim one only to reserve jurisdiction over the post-award 

determination of the amount of costs and attorney’s fees to be awarded; liability, however, had been 

determined. (Docket No. 9, Ex. A.) Based on this award, Plaintiffs suggested that the stay in this 

case would end on July 10 (i.e., 30 days after entry of an award in the arbitration) and therefore 

Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ complaint would be due on July 30 (i.e., 20 days after the stay is 

lifted). (Id.) Plaintiffs requested that the Court schedule a status conference for this case to 

determine next steps. (Id.) 

Defendants’ position is that the arbitrator’s “Interim Award” does not start the clock on the 

lifting of the stay because the award has not been finalized. Defendants do not believe that this 

Court intended to lift the stay based on an “Interim Award.” 

Defendants are correct. The Court’s previous order was meant to stay this case until the 

entry of a final award in the arbitration. Accordingly, this action shall continue to be stayed until 30 

days after a final award is entered in the arbitration, and at that time Defendants will have 20 days to 

file a response to Plaintiffs’ complaint. The parties shall notify the Court when a final award is 

entered in the arbitration.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 20, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

 However, if the arbitrator does not issue the final award within six months of the date of this order, 

the Court would, upon motion, revisit whether to lift the stay in this case at that time. 

Case 5:09-cv-05763-HRL Document 11 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C09-05763 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Bruce Jonathan Napell bjn@singler-law.com 

Bryan W. Dillon bwd@singler-law.com 

Charles G. Miller cmiller@bztm.com, pbrown@bztm.com 

Jason David Maynard jdm@singler-law.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-05763-HRL Document 11 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3