Bishop v. Sierra Nevada Corporation

D. Colorado

Bishop v. Sierra Nevada Corporation

District Court, D. Colorado·Decided April 29, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-00734·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 21-cv-734-RM-KMT

JENNY BISHOP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 13), where the parties agree that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between them which covers all claims brought in this litigation, that this matter should be moved into arbitration, and that the case should be stayed pending resolution of the claims in arbitration. After reviewing the Joint Motion, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds good cause for the parties’ request. The Court finds, however, that administrative closure, a stay equivalent, is more appropriate. Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1465 n.2 (10th Cir. 1987); see also Patterson v. Santini, 631 F. App’x 531, 534 (10th Cir. 2015) (recognizing the use of “the administrative- closure mechanism” by district courts “to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily active elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel)”). And, “[b]ecause an administratively closed case still exists on the docket of the district court, it may be reopened upon request of the parties or on the court’s own motion.” Patterson, 631 F. App’x at 534. Accordingly, it is ORDERED (1) That the Joint Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED in that the Court will grant administrative closure, a stay equivalent; (2) That counsel for the parties shall file a joint report regarding the status of the arbitration within 30 days of the resolution of the claims in arbitration; and (3) That, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the Clerk shall administratively close this case subject to reopening for good cause, e.g., to confirm any arbitration award. DATED this 29th day of April, 2021. BY THE COURT: \

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 21-cv-734-RM-KMT

JENNY BISHOP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 13), where the parties agree that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between them which covers all claims brought in this litigation, that this matter should be moved into arbitration, and that the case should be stayed pending resolution of the claims in arbitration. After reviewing the Joint Motion, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds good cause for the parties’ request. The Court finds, however, that administrative closure, a stay equivalent, is more appropriate. Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1465 n.2 (10th Cir. 1987); see also Patterson v. Santini, 631 F. App’x 531, 534 (10th Cir. 2015) (recognizing the use of “the administrative- closure mechanism” by district courts “to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily active elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel)”). And, “[b]ecause an administratively closed case still exists on the docket of the district court, it may be reopened upon request of the parties or on the court’s own motion.” Patterson, 631 F. App’x at 534. Accordingly, it is ORDERED (1) That the Joint Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED in that the Court will grant administrative closure, a stay equivalent; (2) That counsel for the parties shall file a joint report regarding the status of the arbitration within 30 days of the resolution of the claims in arbitration; and (3) That, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the Clerk shall administratively close this case subject to reopening for good cause, e.g., to confirm any arbitration award. DATED this 29th day of April, 2021. BY THE COURT: \

United States District Judge

Bishop v. Sierra Nevada Corporation, (D. Colo. 2021).

Pincite

Bishop v. Sierra Nevada Corporation (Bishop v. Sierra Nevada Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related