Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01908/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01908-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alpine Management Services III, LLC
Defendant
CE Resource, Inc.
Plaintiff
Elite Continuing Education, Inc.
Defendant
Jassin Jouria
Defendant
NetCE
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

----oo0oo---- 

CE RESOURCE, INC., dba NetCE,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ELITE CONTINUING EDUCATION, 

INC., a Florida corporation, 

and ALPINE MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES III, LLC, 

Defendants. 

CIV. NO. 2:15-01908 WBS AC 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY 

----oo0oo---- 

 On May 17, 2016, this court stayed the present action 

pending determination of CE Resource, Inc.’s, dba NetCE, motion 

to dismiss, transfer, or stay the related and first-filed 

declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of Florida. 

(May 17, 2016 Order at 1 (Docket No. 41)); see also Jouria v. CE 

Resource, Inc. d/b/a CME Resource and NetCE, Civ. No. 15-61165 

(S.D. Fla.). Presently before the court is NetCE’s motion to 

Case 2:15-cv-01908-WBS-DB Document 49 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

lift the stay for the limited purpose of seeking leave to file a 

Second Amended Complaint. (Pl.’s Mot. to Lift Stay (Docket No. 

42).) Both defendants oppose. (Docket Nos. 44, 45.) 

 “‘The same court that imposes a stay of litigation has 

the inherent power and discretion to lift the stay.’” Digital 

Software Servs., Inc. v. Entm’t Programs, Inc., Civ. No. 2:09-

02763 TLN DAD, 2014 WL 5816929, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2014) 

(quoting Akeena Solar Inc. v. Zep Solar Inc., Civ. No. 09–05040 

JSW, 2011 WL 2669453, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2011)). The court 

may lift the stay “‘[w]hen circumstances have changed such that 

the court’s reasons for imposing the stay no longer exist or are 

inappropriate.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

 This court stated in its May 17, 2016 Order that if the 

Southern District of Florida denies NetCE’s motion to dismiss, 

transfer, or stay and decides to proceed with the declaratory 

judgment action, this court would consider whether the first-tofile rule necessitates a further stay, dismissal, or transfer of 

this action to the Southern District of Florida. (May 17, 2016 

Order at 2.) Further, if the Southern District of Florida grants 

NetCE’s motion and defers to this court, this court would provide 

NetCE with an opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint and 

defendants an opportunity to respond. (Id.) 

 Now, NetCE seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint 

prior to the Southern District of Florida’s decision so that it 

can re-join Jassin Jouria as a defendant in this action. (Pl.’s 

Mot. to Lift Stay at 2, 4.) NetCE removed Jouria as a defendant 

pending resolution of his bankruptcy case, which has since been 

dismissed with prejudice. NetCE contends that its motion to 

Case 2:15-cv-01908-WBS-DB Document 49 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

dismiss, transfer, or stay is based in part on Jouria’s status as 

a defendant in the present action and that the Southern District 

of Florida cannot make a decision on its motion “under the 

conditions in which it was filed” unless Jouria is re-joined as a 

defendant. (Id. at 3.) NetCE also seeks to make substantive 

revisions to clarify “areas of confusion” raised by opposing 

counsel in their prior motions to dismiss “[f]or the sake of 

efficiency.” (Id.) 

 This court, however, found that it was most efficient 

for the court and the parties to stay the present action and 

explicitly provided that NetCE would have an opportunity to file 

a Second Amended Complaint after the Southern District of Florida 

issued its decision on NetCE’s motion. (May 17, 2016 Order at 

2.) The circumstances under which this court imposed its stay 

have not materially changed as the court was aware at the time of 

its decision that Jouria was not a party to the present action 

and that his bankruptcy case had been dismissed. Moreover, the 

Southern District of Florida has not yet ruled on NetCE’s 

motion.1

 

 NetCE has also failed to explain why joining Jouria is 

necessary for the Southern District of Florida to properly 

consider its motion. Just as it did during the May 16, 2016 

hearing in this court, NetCE can explain to the Southern District 

of Florida the nature of the proceedings, the role Jouria 

 1

 On June 15, 2016, the Southern District of Florida 

lifted the automatic bankruptcy stay and ordered the parties to 

file a Joint Scheduling Report by July 20, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01908-WBS-DB Document 49 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

allegedly played, and the reasons why Jouria is not currently a 

defendant in the present action. 

 Moreover, if the court were to lift the stay and allow 

NetCE to file a Second Amended Complaint, defendants would be 

required to expend additional time and money filing an answer or 

response before receiving a ruling from the Southern District of 

Florida. Given that the present action may not proceed in this 

court, this would be an inefficient use of party resources and 

would defeat the purpose of this court’s Order imposing a stay. 

 Accordingly, the court will deny NetCE’s motion to lift 

the stay for the purpose of filing a motion for leave to amend. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff NetCE’s motion 

to lift the stay (Docket No. 42) be, and the same hereby is, 

DENIED. 

Dated: July 6, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01908-WBS-DB Document 49 Filed 07/06/16 Page 4 of 4