Thompson v. Tesla Motors Inc

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 LYNN THOMPSON, Case No. 3:21-cv-00238-HDM-WGC 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. ORDER

8 TESLA MOTORS, INC., and ONQGLOBAL, INC., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the court is a motion to stay filed by defendant Tesla 12 Motors, Inc. (ECF No. 13). Co-defendant OnQGlobal has joined the 13 motion. (ECF No. 14). The plaintiff, Lynn Thompson, has opposed 14 (ECF No. 15), and Tesla has replied (ECF No. 17). 15 The complaint, filed on May 21, 2021, asserts a single claim 16 of whistleblower retaliation pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 17 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. The plaintiff’s claim arises from his allegation 18 that in 2018, when he was employed as an electrical superintendent 19 in the Tesla Gigafactory, he was terminated after reporting the 20 theft of copper wires from the plant. He alleges his termination 21 also followed his reporting that Tesla had awarded non-union 22 contracts in violation of its agreement with the State of Nevada. 23 In October 2019, the plaintiff filed a state-court complaint 24 asserting several claims against Tesla and OnQGlobal. The 25 defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the state 26 court granted. The arbitration hearing is currently set to take 27 1 place on January 12, 2022, and January 13, 2022. While the 2 defendants concede that the claim in this action is not arbitrable, 3 they nevertheless ask this court to stay proceedings until the 4 related arbitration is complete. 5 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and 6 calendar and may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, stay an 7 action pending resolution of independent proceedings that bear 8 upon the case if it is “efficient for its own docket and the 9 fairest course for the parties.” Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. 10 v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983); Leyva v. 11 Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 12 1979); CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “This 13 rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, 14 administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require 15 that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of 16 the action before the court.” Mediterranean Enterprises, 708 F.2d 17 at 1465. 18 In deciding whether to stay an action, “the competing 19 interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to 20 grant a stay must be weighed,” including “the possible damage which 21 may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity 22 which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the 23 orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 24 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 25 expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. 26 The claims in the pending arbitration arise from the same 27 facts and circumstances underlying this case and are thus closely 1 related to the plaintiff’s claim in this action. The arbitrator’s 2 conclusions may therefore be useful, if not dispositive, of issues 3 in this action. See Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 4 1321 (9th Cir. 1992) (“An arbitration decision can have res 5 judicata or collateral estoppel effect. . . .”). The arbitration 6 will begin in less than three months, and plaintiff has not 7 identified what prejudice, if any, such a brief stay of this action 8 |} might cause. The court likewise can ascertain no significant 9 || prejudice, particularly in light of the fact the plaintiff waited 10 more than eighteen months after filing his underlying state court 11 complaint to initiate the instant action, and once having filed 12 this action, waited several more months before seeking waivers of 13 service from the defendants. Accordingly, given the similarity of 14 issues in both proceedings and the minimal, if any, prejudice to 15 the plaintiff of a brief stay, the court concludes, in the exercise 16 of its sound discretion, that a stay would be appropriate in this 17 matter. 18 In accordance with the foregoing, the defendants’ motion to 19 stay (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. This action is therefore STAYED 20 pending completion of the related arbitral proceeding or until 21 further order of the court. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: this 3rd day of November, 2021. 24 Lael SD 1 fth> 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28