Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02767/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02767-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
UNITE HERE
Plaintiff
Wilton Rancheria
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 In November 2023, Unite Here (the Union) filed a complaint and petition to compel 

18 arbitration against Wilton Rancheria (the Tribe). See Compl., ECF No. 1. The Union 

19 subsequently filed a motion to compel arbitration, see Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 4, and the Tribe 

20 then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, see ECF No. 5. Following the motion 

21 hearing in January 2024, the court directed the parties to meet and confer and then file a joint 

22 status report. See Hr’g Mins., ECF No. 12. 

23 In the joint status report, the parties indicated a decision would issue in a related 

24 arbitration proceeding no later than March 16, 2024, before Arbitrator Brand. See First JSR, ECF 

25 No. 15. On February 2, 2024, this court stayed this matter pending the resolution of that 

26 proceeding. See Min. Order, ECF No. 16. In doing so, the court directed the parties to file a joint 

27 status report no later than fourteen (14) days after Arbitrator Brand issued his decision. Id. The 

28 court further ordered the parties to indicate whether the stay should be lifted, how the decision 

Unite Here, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wilton Rancheria, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:23-cv-02767-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:23-cv-02767-KJM-SCR Document 20 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 impacted the pending matters before this court and whether a supplemental briefing schedule 

2 would be required. Id. 

3 The court has carefully reviewed the parties’ joint status report and their conflicting 

4 positions. Second JSR, ECF No. 18. While the Union requests the stay be lifted, the Tribe 

5 requests the stay continue in part to allow it “to provide an update on whether it has moved or will 

6 move to vacate” Arbitrator Brand’s award and opinion. Id. at 2–3. The court finds continuing a 

7 stay to allow a party to consider its options does not constitute good cause. Accordingly, after 

8 considering the record and the parties’ positions, the court lifts the previously imposed stay. See 

9 Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (the court 

10 has the inherent power to control its own docket). 

11 The court further finds supplemental briefing is not necessary to resolve the pending 

12 motions and declines the Tribe’s request for supplemental briefing. The court submits the 

13 motions at ECF Nos. 4 and 5. 

14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

15 DATED: April 19, 2024. 

16 

Case 2:23-cv-02767-KJM-SCR Document 20 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 2