Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03729/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03729-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Janda
Plaintiff
Manjit Singh
Plaintiff
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

KEVIN JANDA and MANJIT SINGH,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-03729 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

STAY PENDING APPEAL

INTRODUCTION

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

appeal filed by T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”). 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 June 23, 2006 is VACATED.

ANALYSIS

On March 17, 2006, the Court denied T-Mobile’s motion to compel the Plaintiffs to

arbitrate their claims. On April 14, 2006, T-Mobile appealed that decision pursuant to 9 U.S.C.

§ 16(a)(1)(A) and (B). T-Mobile now moves 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). 

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

Case 3:05-cv-03729-JSW Document 65 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

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 the Plaintiffs’

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 T-Mobile has demonstrated that the

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

Accordingly, exercising its discretion, the Court GRANTS T-Mobile’s motion and STAYS this

action pending resolution of the appeal. 

However, T-Mobile is ORDERED to submit status reports every 120 days while the

appeal is pending apprising the Court of the status of those proceedings and when it expects the

stay to be lifted. T-Mobile’s first status report shall be due within 120 days of the date of this

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03729-JSW Document 65 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2