Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00133/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00133-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Defendant
Morgan Tire of Sacramento, Inc.
Plaintiff
Wingfoot Commercial Tire Systems, LLC
Defendant

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN TIRE OF SACRAMENTO, 

INC, a California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER 

COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation; 

WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE 

SYSTEMS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability 

company; and DOES 1 through 10, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-CV-00133-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Morgan Tire of Sacramento, Inc.’s 

motion for a stay pending determination of its petition for writ of mandamus. ECF No. 30 at 1–2. 

The defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. ECF No. 37. The matter was submitted for 

decision without a hearing. For the reasons described below, the motion is granted. 

As a preliminary matter, the court determines its jurisdiction encompasses 

consideration of Morgan Tire’s motion. See Saldate v. Adams, 573 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1314–15 

(E.D. Cal. 2008) (citing, inter alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c)). 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00133-KJM-AC Document 39 Filed 06/09/15 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

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Morgan Tire previously brought an action in this court against The Goodyear Tire 

and Rubber Company and Wingfoot Commercial Tire Systems, LLC, which was transferred to 

the Northern District of Ohio to enforce a forum selection clause. See Morgan Tire v. Goodyear 

et al., No. 13-2135, Order Nov. 13, 2014, ECF No. 39. Morgan Tire voluntarily dismissed that 

action after it was transferred. See Order Apr. 20, 2015, at 4, ECF No. 25. Morgan Tire then 

filed a new action in this court against the same defendants, who again sought a transfer. Id. at 4–

6. The court granted the motion and transferred the case again on April 20, 2015. Id. at 10. 

Morgan Tire filed a notice it had sought a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit, ECF No. 33, 

and now moves to stay the transfer pending determination of its request for a writ of mandamus, 

ECF No. 30. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

The court has an inherent power to stay proceedings in pursuit of the orderly 

resolution of every case. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is an 

exercise of judicial discretion in light of the “circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation omitted). The same factors inform both the decision 

to stay pending appeal and to stay pending a petition for a writ of mandamus, which in turn are 

essentially the same as applicable to a motion for a preliminary injunction: 

A party seeking a stay must establish that he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 

of relief, that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and that a stay 

is in the public interest. 

Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural 

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); see also, e.g., Powertech Tech. Inc. v. Tessera, 

Inc., No. 11-6121, 2013 WL 1164966, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) (stay pending resolution of 

a petition for a writ of mandamus). 

In this circuit, courts also consider an alternative, “sliding scale” approach. Farris 

v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012). Under this approach, assuming the plaintiff has 

shown the balance of equities tips in its favor and a stay is in the public interest, “‘serious 

Case 2:15-cv-00133-KJM-AC Document 39 Filed 06/09/15 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

questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff” can 

support a stay, even if the plaintiff does not show likely success on the merits. Alliance for the 

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Morgan Tire has shown the applicable factors favor a stay. Although it has not 

shown likely success on the merits, it has pointed out sufficiently “serious questions,” for 

example, whether a plaintiff may abandon contract claims subject to a forum selection clause, 

forego substantial damages associated with those abandoned claims, and thereby avoid transfer 

under the clause. Morgan Tire has also shown it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the case is 

transferred and moves forward. Should the case move to Ohio, as outlined in the court’s previous 

order, Morgan Tire would have little choice but to litigate the question of venue in the Sixth 

Circuit. It would bear the costs of litigating the entirety of its claims out of state, but if successful 

in its appeal here, the case would remain in Sacramento. 

Goodyear and Wingfoot do not oppose the motion to stay or describe any burden 

that would result from a stay. See Statement of Non-Opposition, ECF No. 37. Their notice of 

non-opposition implies that the costs of continued multi-forum litigation could outstrip any 

prejudice they would suffer under a stay. The balance of hardships favors Morgan Tire. Finally, 

if the stay is not granted, and Morgan Tire is successful on appeal, judicial resources may be 

misspent in duplicative proceedings; the public interest weighs in Morgan Tire’s favor. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The motion is GRANTED. This action is STAYED in its entirety pending 

resolution of the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandamus. This order disposes of ECF No. 30. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 8, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00133-KJM-AC Document 39 Filed 06/09/15 Page 3 of 3