Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02283/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02283-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Backtechnic Si.I.
Defendant
Cindi Chananie
Defendant
Cinch Bakery Equipment, LLC
Defendant
Gerd Mang
Defendant
Dinh Nguy
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINH NGUY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CINCH BAKERY EQUIPMENT, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-02283 TLN KJN PS

ORDER

On November 6, 2013, defendants Cindi Chananie (“Chananie”) and Cinch Bakery 

Equipment, LLC (“Cinch”) filed a “motion to dismiss for improper venue and/or to compel 

arbitration” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and the Federal Arbitration Act, 

9 U.S.C. § 2.

1

 (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff Dinh Nguy (“plaintiff”), who is proceeding without counsel 

in this action, filed an Opposition brief on December 16, 2013.2 (Opp‟n, ECF No. 8.) Defendants

Chananie and Cinch filed Reply briefing on December 23, 2013. (Reply, ECF No. 9.) 

By way of background, plaintiff filed an action in state court primarily alleging claims for 

fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and 

 

1

 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

 

2

 Although he initially failed to oppose defendants‟ motion, plaintiff eventually filed a written 

opposition in response to the court‟s order extending his deadline to do so. (Order, ECF No. 7 

(continuing hearing and extending deadline for plaintiff to file opposition).)

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 01/10/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that 

he and defendants entered into a written sales contract whereby he purchased bakery equipment

from defendants, yet when the equipment arrived, it was defective and harmed plaintiff‟s 

business. (Id.) On November 1, 2013, defendants Chananie and Cinch3removed plaintiff‟s

action from state court on the basis of diversity and federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 

1-2.) 

In their pending motion, defendants Chananie and Cinch rely on clause “XVI” in the 

written sales contract requiring “all issues arising” under the contract to be “governed exclusively 

by the laws of the State of New Jersey, without regard to any conflict of law principles.”4 (ECF 

No. 4-1 at 3.) The clause also requires that “[a]ll disputes arising hereunder shall be resolved by 

arbitration conducted in (or, if not possible, near) Totowa, New Jersey[,] by one arbitrator in 

accordance with the then applicable rules for the resolution of Commercial Disputes of the 

American Arbitration Association.” (Id. (emphasis added).) 

Plaintiff‟s Opposition brief clarifies that plaintiff agrees that this dispute should proceed 

to arbitration in New Jersey. (Opp‟n at 9, 12-16.) In fact, plaintiff‟s brief quotes the arbitration 

clause, explains that he “was acceptable to the terms and conditions as stated within Defendants‟ 

section XVI,” (id. at 9), and states that as long as the “arbitration is fair and just, then, [sic] this

matter should be fully resolved.” (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff even emphasizes that he “wants it 

judicially noted and placed on the record, that he has accepted, and does now accept, „AAA‟ 

Administrative Procedure Act, Arbitration within Defendants‟ home state of New Jersey. This 

 

3

 Two of the four named defendants (“Backtechnic Si.I” and “Gerd Mang”) have not yet 

appeared in this case, and it is unclear whether they have been properly served with process. 

However, during the hearing, plaintiff represented that personal service was effectuated upon 

Mang in Las Vegas, and that Mang is a principal of Backtechnic Si.I. The undersigned does not 

make any determination regarding the propriety of service upon either of these non-appearing 

defendants, and notes only that the uncertainties surrounding their service supports staying this 

action pending arbitration rather than dismissing it outright. 

4

 While plaintiff did not attach the “sales contract” to his pleading, defendants attached it to their 

moving papers. (Sales Contract, ECF No. 4-3 at 2-6.) Plaintiff has not disputed the accuracy of 

the filed sales contract, and as described herein, plaintiff agrees that the contract‟s arbitration 

provision governs this dispute. 

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 01/10/14 Page 2 of 5
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

great concession should lead to the proper disposal and conclusion of this matter.” (Id. at 13.) 

Plaintiff concludes that defendants‟ “repeated claim to assert Arbitration, has already and 

repeatedly been ACCEPTED by Plaintiff Dinh Nguy, and Defendants Legal Analysis thereof, is 

factually moot.” (Id. at 14 (grammar, capitalization, and punctuation as in original).) Plaintiff 

also argues that defendants‟ pending motion is “moot” and “functionally moot” given that he 

agrees that the matter should be arbitrated in New Jersey pursuant to the parties‟ sales contract. 

(Id. at 15.)

While he agrees that this dispute is subject to arbitration, plaintiff argues that this pending 

case should not be dismissed outright, but that it should be stayed pending resolution of the 

arbitration. (Opp‟n at 13.) He also emphasizes that staying his case would not “adversely effect” 

the arbitration process. (Id.) 

In their Reply, defendants Chananie and Cinch note that given the contents of plaintiff‟s 

Opposition, “the parties appear to agree that this Court should compel arbitration in New Jersey.” 

(Reply at 2-3.) The Reply also notes that “Plaintiff‟s Opposition seems to suggest that he is 

requesting a stay of the action as opposed to a dismissal. To the extent the Court wishes to stay 

the action pending the completion of the arbitration in New Jersey, Defendants have no objection 

to this disposition.” (Id. at 4 (emphasis added).) 

The pending motion (ECF No. 4) came on for hearing on January 9, 2014. Attorney 

Aaron Rudin attended on behalf of Chananie and Cinch. Plaintiff attended on his own behalf. As 

stated in their papers and confirmed during the hearing, all appearing parties agree that their 

dispute should be arbitrated in New Jersey pursuant to the sales contract‟s arbitration provision. 

Given that all appearing parties agree that the matter is subject to arbitration in New Jersey 

pursuant to clause XVI in the sales contract, and given that the appearing defendants are willing 

to allow this civil case to remain pending until the completion of the arbitration in New Jersey, 

there are no disputed issues left for the court to decide. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Turnkey Const. 

Servs., Inc. v. Alacran Contracting, LLC, No. 13–cv–01654 TLN CMK, 2013 WL 6503307, at *1 

n.2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013) (unpublished) (“Both Defendant‟s motion and Plaintiff‟s opposition 

note a preference that this case be stayed pending arbitration, as opposed to dismissed. Therefore, 

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 01/10/14 Page 3 of 5
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

this is not a disputed issue and the court will stay the case as opposed to dismissing it pending 

arbitration.”) (citation omitted). 

Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed on the record during the hearing and herein, and 

pursuant to the agreement of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants‟ motion (ECF No. 4) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to 

dismiss is denied without prejudice to refiling, and the motion to compel arbitration is 

granted. The appearing parties shall proceed to arbitration in accordance with clause 

XVI of the sales contract, and this federal action is hereby STAYED pending 

resolution of the arbitration in accordance with 9 U.S.C. § 3. Plaintiff shall promptly 

initiate the arbitration proceedings in accordance with clause XVI of the sales 

contract. Plaintiff and defendants Chananie and Cinch shall cooperate to facilitate 

plaintiff‟s prompt initiation of the arbitration proceedings.

2. Defendants Chananie and Cinch shall file a Status Report promptly after plaintiff‟s

formal initiation of arbitration proceedings, and such Status Report should state the 

relevant case name/number assigned to this matter in those proceedings. 

3. Defendants Chananie and Cinch shall also file a Status Report every 90 days from the 

issuance of this order until the arbitration proceedings are completed.5 These 90-day 

Status Reports should include a short update on the progress of the arbitration to date, 

the upcoming dates scheduled in the arbitration, the arbitration‟s estimated 

completion date, whether any previously non-appearing parties have communicated

an intention to appear in this federal case or the arbitration, and any other brief, 

relevant information regarding the status of this dispute and/or its settlement. 

Defendants Chananie and Cinch shall serve a copy of each 90-day Status Report upon 

plaintiff at the time such Report is filed. Plaintiff may, but need not, file his own 

separate Status Reports on the same 90-day timeline. 

////

 

5

 Failure to file such Status Reports will result in an Order to Show Cause and may subject 

defendants Chananie and Cinch and/or their counsel to monetary or other sanctions.

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 01/10/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order upon the two non-appearing defendants, 

namely, “Backtechnic Si.I” and “Gerd Mang,” by certified mail. Within 7 days of 

issuance of this order, plaintiff shall file a proof of service confirming such service. 

The two non-appearing defendants have 30 days from the date of issuance of this 

order to file an objection or other response to this order. If these defendants appear 

and/or file documents taking a position regarding the propriety of staying this case 

pending arbitration, the court will sua sponte set a briefing schedule and schedule a 

hearing date, if necessary. If the court receives nothing from these defendants in the 

30 days following issuance of this order, the order will remain in full force and effect. 

5. The initial scheduling conference (ECF No. 3 at 2) currently set for April 3, 2014, is 

hereby vacated in light of the stay. The court will set an initial scheduling conference 

sua sponte should one become necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 01/10/14 Page 5 of 5