Recommend all read this full file (not a long read) then form your opinion, pay attention to the part I have placed here. Then make your opinion known as to what you think it will do good or bad. Would be interested in hearing it. To me sounds like it is to be in arbitration. So as yet not a problem. Also look at the dates.
D. Stay in proceedings.
In a federal suit brought upon an issue referable to arbitration under a written agreement, the court in which the suit is pending "shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 3. "[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
Here, Mullen does not oppose Qiantu's request to stay this matter pending resolution of the arbitration. Accordingly, the Court shall grant the parties' request to stay the action. III. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions apply, among other reasons, when a party "present[s] to the court" "factual contentions [without] evidentiary support." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2-3). Here, Qiantu's motion is based on the contention that the "Complaint contains numerous allegations that are directly contradicted by evidence" and that "[t]his evidence renders Mullen's claims factually baseless." (Sanctions P&A [Doc. 13-1] 3-6.) However, to date, Qiantu has not filed a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment that would require an evaluation of Mullen's factual allegations or claims. To the contrary, Qiantu's position is that such evaluation should be done in arbitration before the SAIC. Because the SAIC will decide Mullen's claims, this Court is concerned to the extent its factual findings may conflict with the factual findings made during the arbitration. For these reasons, the Court will deny without prejudice Qiantu's motion for sanctions. See McCright v. Santoke, 976 F. 2d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 1992) (acknowledging that, under certain circumstances, denying without prejudice a motion for sanctions pending further litigation may be warranted to develop a "fuller picture" of facts). IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Qiantu's motion to compel arbitration [Doc. 5], ORDERS the parties to arbitrate this dispute before the SAIC in accordance with the terms of the Amended Agreement, and STAYS this action pending conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. The Court further DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Qiantu's motion for sanctions [Doc. 13].
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 1, 2020
/s/_________
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge
Mullen Techs., Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd., Case No.: 3:19-CV-1979 W (AHG), 7-8 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2020)
