Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02844/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02844-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

THE O N EQUITY SALES CO.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

DANIEL MARIA CUI,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 07-2844 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST TO ENGAGE IN

IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

The Court is in receipt of the parties' Joint Meet and Confer Letter, filed October 12, 2007. 

(Doc. #36.) In the letter, Plaintiff The O.N. Equity Sales Company ("ONESCO") seeks permission

to take immediate discovery. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff has filed 20 similar federal

lawsuits around the country in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. As a result,

other federal district courts have already addressed the issue that is before this Court.

In this case, ONESCO seeks to enjoin an arbitration against it by investors in Lancorp

Financial Fund Business Trust. As in the other cases which have already addressed the issue of

discovery, the undersigned finds that immediate discovery is not required to determine the issue of

arbitrability. See, e.g., ONESCO v. Pals, 2007 WL 2506033, at *1 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 6, 2007)

("ONESCO has not shown that immediate discovery is required to determine the issue of

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW Document 38 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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 2

arbitrability."); ONESCO v. Steinke, 2007 WL 2421761, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2007) (court may

decide the issue of arbitrability on a summary judgment motion without discovery or a hearing);

ONESCO v. Rahner, 2007 WL 2908297, at *1 ("ONESCO has failed to demonstrate that immediate

discovery is required . . . to determine the issue of arbitrability"). Moreover, the undersigned finds

that the district court can decide whether Defendants are entitled to arbitrate under the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., Rule 10301 without any discovery. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for an order authorizing immediate discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW Document 38 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 2