Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03303/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03303-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-03303

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed10/03/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

O.N. EQUITY SALES COMPANY, an Ohio

Corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THOMAS NEMES, et. al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-03303

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 1

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

[re: docket nos. 37, 38]

Defendants have filed an emergency motion for administrative relief by which they seek

to postpone the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery now scheduled for hearing

on October 5, 2007, to November 9, 2007, the hearing date for Plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction. Essentially, Defendants assert that the contractual arbitration clause

precludes the present action in its entirety, and that the question of whether Plaintiff is entitled to

discovery should be decided at the same time as the Court addresses the issue of arbitrability.

Under Ninth Circuit authority, a party’s entitlement to discovery ordinarily should be

addressed before the ultimate issue of arbitrability is decided. See, e.g., Aguirre v. Chula Vista

Case 5:07-cv-03303-JF Document 39 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C 07-03303

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

(JFLC1)

Sanitary Serv., 542 F.2d 779, 781 (9th Cir. 1976). However, as it indicated it would do at the

case management conference on September 21, 2007, the Court will consider the arguments with

respect to arbitrability contained in the parties’ moving papers related to the November 9 hearing

prior to deciding the motion for expedited discovery. Accordingly, the Court concludes that

there is no reason to reschedule the October 5 hearing. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

administrative relief is DENIED. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery will

proceed as scheduled.

DATED: October 3, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03303-JF Document 39 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 07-03303

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Daniel T. Balmat dbalmat@ssd.com, rarroyo@ssd.com

Joseph Anthony Meckes jmeckes@ssd.com, sfr_docket@ssd.com

Michael R.Reed reed@litohio.com

Marion Homer Little, Jr. Little@litohio.com

Case 5:07-cv-03303-JF Document 39 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3