Unite Here v. Wilton Rancheria

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Unite Here, No. 2:23-cv-02767-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Wilton Rancheria, 1S Defendant.

17 In November 2023, Unite Here (the Union) filed a complaint and petition to compel | arbitration against Wilton Rancheria (the Tribe). See Compl., ECF No. 1. The Union | subsequently filed a motion to compel arbitration, see Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 4, and the Tribe | then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, see ECF No. 5. Following the motion | hearing in January 2024, the court directed the parties to meet and confer and then file a joint | 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 | arbitration proceeding no later than March 16, 2024, before Arbitrator Brand. See First JSR, ECF | No. 15. On February 2, 2024, this court stayed this matter pending the resolution of that | proceeding. See Min. Order, ECF No. 16. In doing so, the court directed the parties to file a joint | status report no later than fourteen (14) days after Arbitrator Brand issued his decision. /d. The | court further ordered the parties to indicate whether the stay should be lifted, how the decision | impacted the pending matters before this court and whether a supplemental briefing schedule | would be required. /d.

3 The court has carefully reviewed the parties’ joint status report and their conflicting | positions. Second JSR, ECF No. 18. While the Union requests the stay be lifted, the Tribe | requests the stay continue in part to allow it “to provide an update on whether it has moved or will | move to vacate” Arbitrator Brand’s award and opinion. /d. at 2-3. The court finds continuing a | stay to allow a party to consider its options does not constitute good cause. Accordingly, after | considering the record and the parties’ positions, the court lifts the previously imposed stay. See | Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (the court | has the inherent power to control its own docket).

11 The court further finds supplemental briefing is not necessary to resolve the pending | motions and declines the Tribe’s request for supplemental briefing. The court submits the | motions at ECF Nos. 4 and 5.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 | DATED: April 19, 2024. ee