Fu v. Yang
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to stay the litigation pending the resolution of related proceedings in the Hong Kong court, and the parties filed a joint stipulation supporting the stay. The court granted the motion to stay, denied all pending motions without prejudice, and vacated the scheduled hearings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending Resolution of the Hong Kong Court Proceeding“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay (ECF No. 57).” | agree with court The court applied the factors from Landis v. North American Co. to determine that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, noting the early stage of the litigation and the lack of opposition from the plaintiff. |
Denying pending motions without prejudice“the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the pending motions and their related motions to seal in this matter (ECF Nos. 12, 14, 32, 33, 39, 41, 51, 54, 56, 60).” | agree with court The court denied the motions without prejudice to allow the parties to refile them if they remain relevant after the stay is lifted, which is a standard procedural mechanism when a case is stayed. |
Vacating hearings on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss“The Court VACATES the hearings on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 14) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 56), scheduled for January 21, 2021 and February 11, 2021, respectively.” | agree with court Vacating the hearings is a necessary administrative consequence of staying the entire action. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Landis factors to the specific circumstances of the case, noting the early stage of litigation and the joint stipulation by the parties. The reasoning is sufficient to support the decision to stay the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 XIANG-DONG FU, an individual, Case No.: 20-CV-2050 JLS (AHG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION 14 ZHI YANG, an individual; BVCF AND (2) DENYING PENDING MANAGEMENT, LTD.; 15 MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE CUREPHARMA LTD.; 16 KUREPHARMA, LTD.; and THE 17 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF (ECF Nos. 12, 14, 32, 33, 39, 41, 51, 54, CALIFORNIA, 56, 57, 60) 18 Defendants. 19 20 Presently before the Court is Defendants Zhi Yang; BVCF Management, Ltd.; 21 Curepharma, Ltd.; and Kurepharma, Ltd.’s Emergency Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending 22 Resolution of the Hong Kong Court Proceeding (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff Xiang-Dong Fu 23 did not file an opposition to the Motion. See generally Docket. The Parties filed a Joint 24 Stipulation, under order of the Hong Kong court, on January 15, 2021 (ECF No. 59). The 25 Parties stipulated “that the time for Plaintiff to file his Opposition to Defendants’ Joint 26 Motion to Dismiss and for Defendants to file their Opposition to Plaintiff’s PI Motion, and 27 all further steps in connection with those motions, be extended until resolution of the 28 /// 1 |}Summons of Defendants CurePharma and KurePharma in Hong Kong filed on 16 2 || December 2020 as amended on 24 December 2020.” (ECF No. 59 at 2.) 3 After considering the totality of the circumstances of this litigation, including the 4 |learly stage of this litigation, whether a stay would cause undue prejudice or present a clear 5 disadvantage to Plaintiff, and whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and the 6 || trial of the case, the Court determines that staying the case will best conserve judicial and 7 || party resources. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Accordingly, the 8 || Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay (ECF No. 57). The Court hereby ORDERS 9 || as follows: 10 1. All proceedings in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the Hong 11 Kong Court proceeding. 12 2. The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report in this Court within one 13 || hundred and twenty (120) days from the date this order is electronically docketed or within 14 |/fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the proceedings before the Hong Kong Court, 15 || whichever is sooner. 16 3. The Court recognizes that the posture of this case will likely be different after 17 || the stay is lifted. Therefore, the Cour. DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the pending 18 ||motions and their related motions to seal in this matter (ECF Nos. 12, 14, 32, 33, 39, 41, 19 ||51, 54, 56, 60). The Parties are granted leave to refile these motions, if still relevant, after 20 || the stay is lifted. 21 4. The Court VACATES the hearings on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary 22 || Injunction (ECF No. 14) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 56), scheduled for 23 || January 21, 2021 and February 11, 2021, respectively. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: January 19, 2021 tt 26 pee Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 28