Zions Bancorporation N.A. v. RMS Cloud North America, LLC

Opinion

ZIONS BANCORPORATION N.A., dba Case No.: 24-cv-02275-AJB-MMP CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST, a Utah Corporation, MOTION TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ENTERING STAY Plaintiff-in-Interpleader,

v. (Doc. Nos. 35, 37) a Delaware limited liability company; RMS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through10, inclusive,

Defendants-in-Interpleader.

Defendant and Counterclaim and Third-Party Claim Plaintiff, v. RMS NA, INC., REZA PAYDAR and ZIONS BANCORPORATION N.A., dba

Counterclaim and Third-Party Defendants. Two motions are before the Court. At the July 11, 2025, Early Neutral Evaluation, Plaintiff-in-Interpleader and Counterclaim Defendant, Zions Bancorporation N.A., dba California Bank & Trust (“CB&T”), Defendant-in-Interpleader and Third-Party Plaintiff, RMS Cloud North America, LLC (“RMS Cloud”), and Third-Party Defendants RMS NA, Inc. (“RMS NA”), and Reza Paydar (“Paydar”) (collectively, “the Parties”), jointly moved to stay this interpleader action (“Joint Motion to Stay”) (Doc. No. 37), until the Court rules on two pending motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 70; 71) in the related action, RMS NA, Inc. v. RMS (AUS) PTY LTD et al., Case No. 24-cv-01366 (S.D. Cal. filed August 1, 2024) (“RMS v. RMS”). On July 11, 2025, the Parties also filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Revise Briefing Schedule on CB&T’s Motion to Deposit Funds and for Judgment in Interpleader (“Joint Stipulation”). (Doc No. 35.) I. Joint Motion to Stay the Action (Doc. No. 37) “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). Because this interpleader action depends in part on the outcome of the two pending motions to dismiss in RMS v. RMS, the Court finds that any possible damage, hardship, or inequity in issuing the stay to be minimal, and that issuing a stay would simplify the issues before the Court in this action. See In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 100 F.4th 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2024). Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Stay is GRANTED. II. Joint Stipulation and Motion to Revise Briefing Schedule (Doc. No. 35) In the Parties’ Joint Stipulation, the Parties state that they will file a stipulation settling the issues raised by CB&T’s Motion to Deposit Funds and For Judgment in Interpleader (“CB&T’s Motion”) (Doc. No. 25) by August 1, 2025. (See Doc. No. 35 ¶ 3.) The Parties request that the deadlines for RMS Cloud, Paydar, and RMS NA to respond to CB&T’s Motion and the hearing in relation to CB&T’s Motion be held in abeyance until the Parties have filed their stipulation. For good cause shown, the Parties’ Joint Stipulation | |}is GRANTED. If the parties do not file a stipulation settling the subject of CB&T’s Motion August 1, 2025, and if the case is no longer stayed pending resolution of the two motions to dismiss in RMS v. RMS, the Court will re-issue a briefing schedule as to CB&T’s Motion. Dated: July 14, 2025 □

United States District Judge