Summary
Finding a "possible circuit split" in light of "a recent decision by the Second Circuit agreeing with the dissent and rejecting the majority in the Ninth Circuit's decision"
Summary of this case from Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc.Opinion
Case No. 04-3955 SC.
November 18, 2008
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
The present matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Stay Proceedings ("Motion") filed by the defendant Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. ("Harrah's" or "Defendant"). Docket No. 165. The plaintiff NGV Gaming, LTD. ("NGV" or "Plaintiff") submitted an Opposition and Harrah's filed a Reply. Docket Nos. 168, 173. Both parties also submitted additional briefing. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 170, 175, 177. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Harrah's Motion. Proceedings in the present action are STAYED pending the ruling by the United States Supreme Court on Harrah's petition for certiorari.
The facts of this case have been extensively briefed by both parties and have been recited in both this Court's previous Orders and the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion by a divided panel reversing this Court's Order denying NGV's motion for summary judgment. See Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, LTD., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008). The parties' familiarity with the facts is therefore presumed. For present purposes, the Court notes that Harrah's has filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Neither party disputes the fact that "[d]istrict courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them." Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003) (citingLandis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). "In deciding whether to issue or grant a stay, a Court should weigh the competing interests of the case, e.g., the possible hardship to the parties, the orderly course of justice, and the possible damage that may result from a delay." Bankston v. Bayer Corp., No. C-06-0783 SC, 2006 WL 889180, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2006).
After reviewing the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Court finds that a stay will promote the orderly course of justice without causing hardship to either party. In a surreply filed without leave from the Court, NGV argues that it might be prejudiced because of "the likelihood of an impending insolvency at the time of any final judgment awarding monetary damages to NGV." Docket No. 175. As Harrah's points out, however, this claim is undercut by the very evidence presented and relied upon by NGV.
Further supporting the stay is a recent decision by the Second Circuit agreeing with the dissent and rejecting the majority in the Ninth Circuit's decision in Guidiville, thereby creating a possible circuit split. See Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm't Corp., ___ F.3d ___, Docket No. 06-5860, 2008 WL 4630309, at *7 (2nd Cir. Oct. 21, 2008) (citing the Honorable Judge Smith's dissent in Guidiville). Although far from a sure thing, this holding by the Second Circuit would tend to increase the prospect for review of Guidiville by the Supreme Court.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court STAYS the proceedings pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Harrah's petition for certiorari.
IT IS SO ORDERED.