Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03389/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03389-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rita Dunham
Plaintiff
ECC
Defendant
ECC International
Defendant
ECC Remediation Services
Defendant
Environmental Chemical Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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

RITA DUNHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL

CORPORATION, ECC, ECC

INTERNATIONAL, AND ECC

REMEDIATION SERVICES (collectively

referred to as “ECC”) and DOES 1-20,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03389 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STAY ACTION PENDING

APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to stay pending

appeal filed by Environmental Chemical Corporation (“ECC ”). Having considered the parties’

pleadings, relevant legal authority, the record in this case and good cause appearing, the Court

finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L. Rule 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the hearing set for January 12, 2007 is HEREBY VACATED.

ANALYSIS

On August16, 2006, the Court denied ECC’s motion to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her

claims. On September 8, 2006, ECC appealed that decision. On September 14, 2006, ECC

filed an amended notice of appeal. On October 27, 2006, ECC moved to stay the proceedings in

this Court pending appeal.

It is within this Court’s discretion to determine whether it should stay these proceedings

pending appeal. Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 & n.8 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 3:06-cv-03389-JCS Document 37 Filed 01/04/07 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

In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he standard for evaluating stays pending appeal is similar to that

employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.” Lopez v.

Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776

(1987) (setting forth four factors governing issuance of stay pending appeal: “(1) whether the

stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether

the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will

substantially injure the other parties interested in proceeding; and (4) where the public interest

lies”). The Ninth Circuit uses “two interrelated legal tests for the issuance of preliminary

injunction.” Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435. Thus, a moving party may either show a “probability of

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury” or “demonstrate that serious legal

questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” Id.

The central dispute between the parties, pertinent to the appeal, is whether Plaintiff’s

claims should be resolved in the judicial forum or the arbitral forum. Having considered the

parties’ arguments, and in light of the sliding scale used by the Ninth Circuit in evaluating

whether stays should be granted, the Court finds that ECC has failed to demonstrate that the

balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor or that serious legal questions are presented. 

Accordingly, exercising its discretion, the Court DENIES ECC’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03389-JCS Document 37 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2