Perry Street Software, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PERRY STREET SOFTWARE, INC., Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04539(CM) v. NOTICE OF AGREED MOTION TO TEMPORARILY STAY CASE AND AR- JEDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BITRATION PENDING RESOLUTION OF PERRY’S MOTION TO COMPEL = rclaim Plaintiff. ARBITRATION AND STAY THE CASE, USDC SDNY AND JEDI’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMI- DOCUMENT NARY INJUNCTION ENJOINING OR ELECTRONICALLY FILED STAYING ARBITRATION #: _ DETAR Cio 8 TE FILED:_ [ofisfaaxe Likabew ba

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Perry Street Software, Inc. (“Perry”) and Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff Jedi Technologies, Inc. (“Jedi”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through undersigned counsel, jointly request and move the Court, before the Honorable Colleen McMahon, at the United States Courthouse for the Southern District of New York located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an Order temporarily staying this case and the arbitration styled Perry Street Software, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc., AAA Case Number 01-20-0014-6921 (hereinafter, the “Arbitra- tion”). In support of this Agreed Motion, the Parties state as follows: Le On August 31, 2020, Perry filed its Demand for Arbitration in the Arbitration. 2. On September 18, 2020, Jedi filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Enjoining or Staying Arbitration (“Motion for a Preliminary Injunction”). See Dkt. Nos. 34-36. This motion is fully briefed. See Dkt. No. 40 (Perry’s Resp.); Dkt. No. 44 (Jedi’s Reply).

_ s/ oo mer Pe OO pp eT 4 7 1 len

3. On September 21, 2020, Perry filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Case (“Motion to Compel Arbitration”). Dkt. Nos. 37-38. This motion is also fully briefed. Dkt. No. 41 (Jedi’s Resp.); Dkt. No. 47 (Perry’s Reply). 4. On October 8, 2020, Perry filed a Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Case. See Dkt. No. 42-43. The Parties do not oppose a temporary stay of this litigation and the Arbitration pending the Court’s resolution of Perry’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. No. 37) and Jedi’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 34). The Court has the authority to temporarily stay this case and the Arbitration until it has determined whether the Parties’ patent infringement dispute is arbitrable. See, e.g., Dylan 140 LLC v. Figueroa, 2019 WL 2235884, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2019) (“Courts in this district have routinely issues restraining orders to stay arbitration proceedings on a temporary basis [while a determination of arbitrability is pending].”); Range v. 480-486 Broadway, LLC, 810 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[A] district court possesses inherent authority to control the disposition of the causes on its docket and has power to stay an action as an incident of that authority[.]”). 6. The Parties agree that a temporary stay of the Arbitration and this case pending the Court’s resolution of Jedi’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. Nos. 34-36) and Perry’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. Nos. 37-38), will save the Parties and Court time and re- sources. 7. To be clear, the Parties presently seek a temporary stay of the Arbitration and this case only until the Court has ruled on the Parties’ respective motions regarding the arbitrability of the Parties’ patent infringement dispute. The Parties do not presently seek or agree to a stay of this case pending any subsequent rehearing request or appeal of the Court’s decision on the Parties’

motions. Either Party would remain free to move for a further stay if that Party’s motion regarding arbitrability is denied. For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an Order temporarily staying this case and the Arbitration until it has ruled on Jedi’s Motion for a Prelimi- nary Injunction (Dkt. Nos. 34-36) and Perry’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. Nos. 37-38).

Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,

Brian E. Haan (admitted pro hac vice) Steven Callahan bhaan@leesheikh.com scallahan@ccrglaw.com Ashley E. LaValley (admitted pro hac vice) Brett Charhon alavalley@leesheikh.com New York State Bar No. 4770731 Dragan Gjorgiev (admitted pro hac vice) bcharhon@ccrglaw.com dgjorgiev@leesheikh.com Mitchell Sibley LEE SHEIKH MEGLEY & HAAN LLC msibley@ccrglaw.com 111 West Jackson Boulevard CHARHON CALLAHAN Suite 2230 ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC Chicago, IL 60604 3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460 Telephone: 312-982-0070 Dallas, Texas 75219 Fax: 312-982-0071 Telephone: (214) 521-6400 Telecopier: (214) 764-8392 Attorneys for Defendant, Jedi Technologies, Inc. Attorneys for Plaintiff Perry Street Software, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 14, 2020 the foregoing: NOTICE OF AGREED MOTION TO TEMPORARILY STAY CASE AND ARBITRATION PENDING RESOLUTION OF PERRY’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE CASE, AND JEDI’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENJOINING OR STAYING ARBITRATION

was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing to the following counsel of record: Brett Charhon bchargon@ccrglaw.com Steven Callahan scallahan@ccrglaw.com Mitchell Reed Sibley msibley@ccrglaw.com CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC 3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460 Dallas, Texas 75219 Counsel for Plaintiff Perry Street Software, Inc.

LEE SHEIKH MEGLEY & HAAN Counsel for Jedi Technologies, Inc.