Opinion ID: 3013868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: K of the 1999 Agreement.

Text: Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. 12 We review to see if the District Court Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, abused its discretion in issuing the stay. 19 (1983). 9 courts would be able to rely upon judicial right to litigate. Marriott argues that it can economy and stay litigation whenever make out the clear hardship or inequity plaintiffs elected to file state actions needed to support the District Court’s stay related to their pending federal claims. See and, unlike Avendra, it filed a formal F EDERAL J URISDICTION, supra, at § 14.2 motion in support of this argument. (“[R]equiring federal court dismissal However, the District Court did not stay would give litigants a powerful tool to the litigation based on any hardship to keep cases out of federal court or remove Marriott; it stayed the litigation based on cases to state court simply by filing a Avendra’s presence in the litigation and parallel suit in state court.”) considerations of judicial efficiency. Accordingly, any hardship Marriott may We recognize the potential for now claim is not before us. judicial efficiency that lies in possible collateral estoppel because the arbitrator Nor is there any evidence to support could make determinations relevant to a finding of hardship or inequity to CTF’s federal claims. However, we have Avendra in the record. Avendra stated “a already explained that staying litigation for preference” that the arbitration proceed that reason effectively denies CTF its first when it spoke briefly to the District contracted for day in court. The right to Court at a hearing on Marriott’s motion to litigate would mean little if the substance compel arbitration and CTF’s motion for of the litigation, when CTF’s day in court preliminary injunction. The basis for its finally dawns, may be driven by something preference was that it would be forced to that may have occurred during arbitration. defend itself twice – once in arbitration, once in litigation – unless the litigation was stayed in favor of the arbitration. It Similarly, Avendra’s presence does believed that the arbitration was likely to not provide a satisfactory basis for the settle claims relating to it and this would stay. The Supreme Court has said that, prevent it from ever having to deal with when a District Court decides whether to CTF or defend in the litigation. However, stay a suit pending the outcome of another Avendra’s convenience can not defeat suit in the same forum, “the suppliant for CTF’s contractual right to litigate. a stay must make out a clear case of Moreover, it is not at all clear that it would hardship or inequity in being required to actually be inequitable to expect Avendra go forward. . . .” Landis v. North Am. Co., to defend itself against two claims brought 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). Although the by two separate corporations. situation here differs because the District Court had to decide whether to stay this IV. CONCLUSION litigation pending the outcome of an For all of the above reasons, we arbitration, the same logic applies. The will affirm the order of the District Court opposing party must state a clear denying Marriott’s request to compel countervailing interest to abridge a party’s 10 arbitration against CTF, and we will arbitration and denying Marriott’s motion reverse the District Court’s order staying to compel arbitration, I respectfully CTF’s litigation against M arriott. dissent. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. R hone P o u l e n c F i b e r & R e s i n Intermediaries, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187, 203 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 50-51 (1995)). CTF HOTEL HOLDINGS, INC. V. The question whether the District MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. Court abused its discretion in granting the (NOS. 02-2732 & 02-2898) stay involves the District Court’s consideration of myriad factors affecting judicial economy, the “hardship or