Olympic Ophthalmics Inc v. Gertner

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 OLYMPIC OPHTHALMICS, INC., a Case No. C24-2074-RSM 9 Delaware corporation, 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Plaintiff, AND STRIKING MOTION TO COMPEL 11 v. 12

13 MICHAEL GERTNER, an individual,

14 Defendant.

16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Michael Gertner’s Motion to Stay, 17 Dkt. #27. Plaintiff Olympic Ophthalmics, Inc. (“Olympic”) opposes. Dkt #28. Neither party 18 19 requests oral argument. 20 Defendant Gertner moves to stay proceedings “to await outcomes in two parallel 21 proceedings,” a petition before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and arbitration 22 proceedings initiated by Defendant against Plaintiff. See Dkt. #27 at 1. 23 Plaintiff Olympic argues in its Response that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 24 25 petition was dismissed on August 5, 2025, and Defendant Gertner does not dispute this. See 26 Dkts. #28 and #29. The Court will not stay the case on this basis. 27 28 As for the parallel arbitration proceedings, they arise out of an arbitration agreement 1 2 between the parties and include not only Defendant Gertner’s claims for breach of contract and 3 unpaid wages, but Plaintiff Olympic’s counterclaims for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. 4 See Dkt. #27-3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “breached the Consulting Agreement by, inter 5 alia, failing to deliver Olympic’s property to Olympic, including but not limited to Confidential 6 Information, devices and equipment belonging to the Company, and electronically-stored 7 8 information and passwords.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached a fiduciary duty 9 by selling “Company property.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff also states that the arbitration agreement 10 requires arbitration for “any and all controversies, claims or disputes … arising out of, relating 11 to, or resulting from Consultant’s consulting relationship with the Company” in accordance 12 13 with the “JAMS streamlined rules for the resolution of disputes.” Id. at 5. 14 In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin and 15 unfair competition, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duties. See Dkt. #1. 16 A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings, incidental to the inherent power 17 to control its own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. 18 19 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). This power includes staying an action “pending resolution of 20 independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong 21 Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) sets forth procedures for enforcing arbitration 23 agreements in federal court. Section 3 of the FAA specifies that, when a dispute is subject to 24 25 arbitration, the court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until 26 [the] arbitration” has concluded. 9 U.S.C. § 3; see also Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 144 S. 27 Ct. 1173, 218 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2024). 28 Given all of the above, it is clear to the Court that this matter must be stayed pending the 1 2 parallel arbitration because at least some of the claims at issue are also being arbitrated by the 3 parties per their agreement and because the arbitration agreement may cover any and all 4 disputes arising between the parties 5 Accordingly, having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the record, 6 the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant Michael Gertner’s Motion to Stay, Dkt. 7 8 #27, is GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending the completion of the parallel JAMS 9 arbitration proceedings. The pending Motion to Compel in this case is STRICKEN and must 10 be refiled, if necessary, with a new meet-and-confer certification. The parties shall file a joint 11 status report notifying the Court within seven days of the conclusion of the arbitration 12 13 proceedings. 14 DATED this 8th day of September, 2025. 15 A 16

17 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23