1 MARK T. JANSEN, ESQ. California Bar No. 114896 2 PAUL F. KIRSCH, ESQ. California Bar No. 127446 3 KIRSCH & JANSEN LLP 2041 Bancroft Way, Suite 206 4 Berkeley, California 94704 Phone: (510) 390-8900 5 mark@kirschjansenlaw.com paul@kirschjansenlaw.com 6 PILAR R. STILLWATER, ESQ. 7 California Bar No. 260467 LIVE OAK LAW OFFICE LLP 8 1442A Walnut Street #229 Berkeley, California 94709 9 Phone: 510.637.9349 pstillwater@liveoaklawoffice.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 ATS PRODUCTS, INC. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 ATS PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00494-HSG 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH 16 vs. DOCKET NO. 21 AND ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF 17 FIBER GLASS SYSTEMS, L.P., a Texas PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST- Limited Partnership; DOES 1-20 FILED ACTION BETWEEN THE inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS PARTIES PENDING IN SOUTHERN 18 ENTITIES 1-20, inclusive. DISTRICT OF TEXAS; 19 Defendants. 20 21 Further to the Court’s Minute Order following March 3, 2026 Case Management 22 Conference (Dkt. 21), and to resolve the motion to dismiss or transfer this action filed by 23 Defendant Fiber Glass Systems L.P. (“FGS”) on February 4, 2026, Dkt. No. 5, and in light of the 24 1 first-filed action between the Parties filed by FGS on June 11, 2025, in the federal district court 2 for the Southern District of Texas, Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. v. ATS Products, Inc., Case No. 3 4:25-cv-02728 (S.D. Tex.) (hereafter the “First-filed Texas Action”), the parties hereto stipulate 4 to entry of an order staying this action until ATS’s pending motion to dismiss is resolved in the 5 First-filed Texas Action. The First-filed Texas Action concerns the same facts, claims and subject
6 matter as asserted in the later-filed Complaint in this Court by Plaintiff ATS Products, Inc. 7 (“ATS”). Accordingly, ATS and FGS (together, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned 8 counsel, hereby stipulate and recommend to the Court that FGS’s motion to dismiss this case be 9 resolved by an order staying all proceedings in this action until the Southern District of Texas 10 decides the currently pending, fully briefed and submitted motion to dismiss the first-filed Texas 11 action. 12 The stay order recommended by the Parties is consistent with Ninth Circuit authority and 13 supported by good cause. The parties accordingly stipulate as follows: 14 1. On December 1, 2025, ATS filed its Complaint in this action in the Superior Court
15 of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, Dkt. No. 1-1, which action FGS has removed 16 to this Court (on January 16, 2026). Dkt. No. 1. 17 2. On February 10, 2026, ATS filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Actions (“Notice 18 of Pendency”), Dkt. No. 8, notifying the Court of an earlier-filed Declaratory Relief action 19 between the parties in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed 20 June 11, 2025, by FGS. FGS’s Complaint in the First-filed Texas Action is attached as Exhibit 2 21 to the Notice of Pendency. See Dkt. No. 8-2 (S.D. Texas Complaint). 22 3. The First-Filed Texas Action involves the same two parties, the same 23 circumstances, and the same claims asserted by ATS in its Complaint. 24 1 4. On December 12, 2025, ATS, specially appearing, filed a Motion to Dismiss the 2 First-Filed Texas Action on grounds of improper venue (28 USC § 1391), and for dismissal under 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 USC 4 § 2201). A copy of ATS’s Motion to Dismiss the First-Filed Texas Action is attached as Exhibit 5 5 to the Notice of Pendency. Dkt. No. 8-5. ATS’s Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed as of
6 February 13, 2026, and is under submission for determination by the District Court in Houston, 7 Texas. See Dkt. No. 8 at 3. 8 5. On February 4, 2026, FGS filed in this action its Motion to Dismiss or, In the 9 Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (“FGS Motion”). Dkt. No. 5. The Parties jointly submitted 10 a request and stipulation for an order extending briefing on the FGS Motion so that they would 11 have time to discuss and agree on an appropriate resolution of the FGS Motion, which this Court 12 granted on February 17, 2026. Dkt. Nos. 16, 17. 13 6. The Parties jointly submit to the Court that, under the federal first-filed case 14 doctrine, this Court should stay all proceedings in this case, at least until the Southern District of
15 Texas decides the pending and fully briefed Motion to Dismiss the First-Filed Texas Action. A 16 stay will avoid inconsistent results and duplicative use of judicial and party resources and is 17 approved of by Ninth Circuit authority. See, e.g., Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, 18 Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240-41 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming stay where, as here, there was no dispute 19 that earlier-filed federal case “involving substantially similar parties and issues” was the first- 20 filed action). It is accepted practice in this Circuit to stay a second-filed action until motions to 21 dismiss in an earlier-filed action are resolved. See, e.g., Carolina Casualty Co. v. Data 22 Broadcasting Corp, 158 F.Supp.2d 1044, 1046 (N.D. Cal 2001) (“By stipulation, the parties 23 24 1 agreed to stay the case filed by defendants in the Central District pending a resolution by this 2 court of defendants' motion to dismiss or to transfer venue.”). 3 7. The Parties accordingly submit that there is good cause for this Court to issue an 4 Order staying this case in accordance with Ninth Circuit authority, to avoid needless, duplicative 5 litigation and use of judicial resources, until the Southern District of Texas has ruled on the
6 pending Motion to Dismiss filed by ATS in that court. A stay of this case will avoid this Court 7 duplicating the analysis already underway by the Southern District of Texas. A stay will also 8 avoid the Parties’ duplication of costly resources and time. 9 8. Along with this request for a stay, following the March 3, 2023 case management 10 conference conducted by the Court, and subsequent minute order (Docket No. 21), (1) FGS 11 withdraws its pending Motion to Dismiss in this action, without prejudice to refile after the ruling 12 on ATS’s Motion to Dismiss the pending Texas Action, and (2) without prejudice to FGS’s right 13 to dispute after such future ruling whether venue or jurisdiction are proper in this California 14 Action.
15 9. The parties, therefore, jointly agree and request that the Court stay all proceedings 16 in this action until such time as the Southern District of Texas decides the pending Motion to 17 Dismiss or Transfer currently pending in that court. 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 19 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 DATED: March 12, 2026 LIVE OAK LAW OFFICE LLP 22 By: /s/ Pilar R. Stillwater Pilar R. Stillwater 23 Attorney for Plaintiff ATS Products Inc. 24 1 2 DATED: March 12, 2026 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 3 4 By: /s/ Neil Kliebenstein_________ Neil M. Kliebenstein 5 Jonathan Nguyen Attorneys for Defendant 6 Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 ORDER STAYING ACTION 2 Having considered the Parties’ stipulation to stay all deadlines pending decision of th 3 Southern District of Texas on Plaintiff ATS’s motion to dismiss in Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. v 4 || ATS Products, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-02728 (S.D. Tex.), and finding good cause for the reques 5 ||to stay all deadlines, the Court hereby GRANTS the stipulation and ORDERS as follows: 6 1. This case is hereby STAYED pending disposition by the Southern District of Texas o 7 ATS’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 4:25-cv-02728, Dkt. No. 19). 8 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 MARK T. JANSEN, ESQ. California Bar No. 114896 2 PAUL F. KIRSCH, ESQ. California Bar No. 127446 3 KIRSCH & JANSEN LLP 2041 Bancroft Way, Suite 206 4 Berkeley, California 94704 Phone: (510) 390-8900 5 mark@kirschjansenlaw.com paul@kirschjansenlaw.com 6 PILAR R. STILLWATER, ESQ. 7 California Bar No. 260467 LIVE OAK LAW OFFICE LLP 8 1442A Walnut Street #229 Berkeley, California 94709 9 Phone: 510.637.9349 pstillwater@liveoaklawoffice.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 ATS PRODUCTS, INC. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 ATS PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00494-HSG 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH 16 vs. DOCKET NO. 21 AND ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF 17 FIBER GLASS SYSTEMS, L.P., a Texas PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST- Limited Partnership; DOES 1-20 FILED ACTION BETWEEN THE inclusive; and ROE BUSINESS PARTIES PENDING IN SOUTHERN 18 ENTITIES 1-20, inclusive. DISTRICT OF TEXAS; 19 Defendants. 20 21 Further to the Court’s Minute Order following March 3, 2026 Case Management 22 Conference (Dkt. 21), and to resolve the motion to dismiss or transfer this action filed by 23 Defendant Fiber Glass Systems L.P. (“FGS”) on February 4, 2026, Dkt. No. 5, and in light of the 24 1 first-filed action between the Parties filed by FGS on June 11, 2025, in the federal district court 2 for the Southern District of Texas, Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. v. ATS Products, Inc., Case No. 3 4:25-cv-02728 (S.D. Tex.) (hereafter the “First-filed Texas Action”), the parties hereto stipulate 4 to entry of an order staying this action until ATS’s pending motion to dismiss is resolved in the 5 First-filed Texas Action. The First-filed Texas Action concerns the same facts, claims and subject
6 matter as asserted in the later-filed Complaint in this Court by Plaintiff ATS Products, Inc. 7 (“ATS”). Accordingly, ATS and FGS (together, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned 8 counsel, hereby stipulate and recommend to the Court that FGS’s motion to dismiss this case be 9 resolved by an order staying all proceedings in this action until the Southern District of Texas 10 decides the currently pending, fully briefed and submitted motion to dismiss the first-filed Texas 11 action. 12 The stay order recommended by the Parties is consistent with Ninth Circuit authority and 13 supported by good cause. The parties accordingly stipulate as follows: 14 1. On December 1, 2025, ATS filed its Complaint in this action in the Superior Court
15 of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, Dkt. No. 1-1, which action FGS has removed 16 to this Court (on January 16, 2026). Dkt. No. 1. 17 2. On February 10, 2026, ATS filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Actions (“Notice 18 of Pendency”), Dkt. No. 8, notifying the Court of an earlier-filed Declaratory Relief action 19 between the parties in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed 20 June 11, 2025, by FGS. FGS’s Complaint in the First-filed Texas Action is attached as Exhibit 2 21 to the Notice of Pendency. See Dkt. No. 8-2 (S.D. Texas Complaint). 22 3. The First-Filed Texas Action involves the same two parties, the same 23 circumstances, and the same claims asserted by ATS in its Complaint. 24 1 4. On December 12, 2025, ATS, specially appearing, filed a Motion to Dismiss the 2 First-Filed Texas Action on grounds of improper venue (28 USC § 1391), and for dismissal under 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 USC 4 § 2201). A copy of ATS’s Motion to Dismiss the First-Filed Texas Action is attached as Exhibit 5 5 to the Notice of Pendency. Dkt. No. 8-5. ATS’s Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed as of
6 February 13, 2026, and is under submission for determination by the District Court in Houston, 7 Texas. See Dkt. No. 8 at 3. 8 5. On February 4, 2026, FGS filed in this action its Motion to Dismiss or, In the 9 Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (“FGS Motion”). Dkt. No. 5. The Parties jointly submitted 10 a request and stipulation for an order extending briefing on the FGS Motion so that they would 11 have time to discuss and agree on an appropriate resolution of the FGS Motion, which this Court 12 granted on February 17, 2026. Dkt. Nos. 16, 17. 13 6. The Parties jointly submit to the Court that, under the federal first-filed case 14 doctrine, this Court should stay all proceedings in this case, at least until the Southern District of
15 Texas decides the pending and fully briefed Motion to Dismiss the First-Filed Texas Action. A 16 stay will avoid inconsistent results and duplicative use of judicial and party resources and is 17 approved of by Ninth Circuit authority. See, e.g., Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, 18 Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240-41 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming stay where, as here, there was no dispute 19 that earlier-filed federal case “involving substantially similar parties and issues” was the first- 20 filed action). It is accepted practice in this Circuit to stay a second-filed action until motions to 21 dismiss in an earlier-filed action are resolved. See, e.g., Carolina Casualty Co. v. Data 22 Broadcasting Corp, 158 F.Supp.2d 1044, 1046 (N.D. Cal 2001) (“By stipulation, the parties 23 24 1 agreed to stay the case filed by defendants in the Central District pending a resolution by this 2 court of defendants' motion to dismiss or to transfer venue.”). 3 7. The Parties accordingly submit that there is good cause for this Court to issue an 4 Order staying this case in accordance with Ninth Circuit authority, to avoid needless, duplicative 5 litigation and use of judicial resources, until the Southern District of Texas has ruled on the
6 pending Motion to Dismiss filed by ATS in that court. A stay of this case will avoid this Court 7 duplicating the analysis already underway by the Southern District of Texas. A stay will also 8 avoid the Parties’ duplication of costly resources and time. 9 8. Along with this request for a stay, following the March 3, 2023 case management 10 conference conducted by the Court, and subsequent minute order (Docket No. 21), (1) FGS 11 withdraws its pending Motion to Dismiss in this action, without prejudice to refile after the ruling 12 on ATS’s Motion to Dismiss the pending Texas Action, and (2) without prejudice to FGS’s right 13 to dispute after such future ruling whether venue or jurisdiction are proper in this California 14 Action.
15 9. The parties, therefore, jointly agree and request that the Court stay all proceedings 16 in this action until such time as the Southern District of Texas decides the pending Motion to 17 Dismiss or Transfer currently pending in that court. 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 19 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 DATED: March 12, 2026 LIVE OAK LAW OFFICE LLP 22 By: /s/ Pilar R. Stillwater Pilar R. Stillwater 23 Attorney for Plaintiff ATS Products Inc. 24 1 2 DATED: March 12, 2026 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 3 4 By: /s/ Neil Kliebenstein_________ Neil M. Kliebenstein 5 Jonathan Nguyen Attorneys for Defendant 6 Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 ORDER STAYING ACTION 2 Having considered the Parties’ stipulation to stay all deadlines pending decision of th 3 Southern District of Texas on Plaintiff ATS’s motion to dismiss in Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. v 4 || ATS Products, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-02728 (S.D. Tex.), and finding good cause for the reques 5 ||to stay all deadlines, the Court hereby GRANTS the stipulation and ORDERS as follows: 6 1. This case is hereby STAYED pending disposition by the Southern District of Texas o 7 ATS’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 4:25-cv-02728, Dkt. No. 19). 8 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer this action, filed February 4, 2026 (Docket No 9 5) is withdrawn without prejudice to refile after the ruling on ATS’s Motion to Dismiss th 10 pending Texas Action, and (2) without prejudice to FGS’s right to dispute after such futur 11 ruling whether venue or jurisdiction are proper in this California Action. 12 3. The Parties shall file a Joint Status Report within 14 days of the Southern District of Texa 13 issuing its decision on ATS’s pending Motion to Dismiss. 14 4. All deadlines previously set by this Court are taken off calendar, to be reset as appropriat 15 once the stay ordered herein 1s lifted. 16 || PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Date: 3/12/2026 18 HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 STIP. TO STAY 6 CASE NO: 4:26-CV-00494-HSG