JOINT STIPULATION, MOTION, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR STAY OF LITIGATION PENDING FINALIZATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
Plaintiff TIBCO SOFTWARE INC. ("Plaintiff") and defendant FEI COMPANY ("Defendant") hereby stipulate and jointly move this Court for an order staying the above-captioned litigation for a period of sixty (60) days to allow for the parties to finalize, perform, and complete their settlement agreement.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit by the filing of its initial complaint on February 10, 2017. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff's amended pleading, which is the operative complaint in this case, was filed on May 2, 2017. (Doc. 25.) Defendant answered the amended complaint on May 16, 2017, and filed an amended answer on June 16, 2017. (Docs. 26, 34.)
The parties filed their joint case management statement on June 8, 2017. (Doc. 32.) On June 12, 2017, this Court issued its Case Management Order, establishing the schedule for discovery, motions, and pre-trial matters in this case. (Doc. 33.) On November 22, 2017, this Court granted the parties' request for an extension of certain discovery and motion-filing deadline, which order did not affect the originally-set joint trial setting conference statement and trial setting conference dates. (Doc. 39.)
The parties participated in a court-sponsored ADR session with Mr. Mark LeHocky pursuant to Civ.L.R. 16-8 on July 13, 2017. (Doc. 35.) During the litigation proceedings, the parties resumed the settlement discussions, and on or about November 30, 2017, successfully reached an agreement for the resolution of this matter.
The terms of the parties' settlement agreement provide for certain performance to occur by or before the first part of January 2018, after which time they will submit a joint motion for the dismissal of the case, in its entirety. The parties fully anticipate and expect that such performance shall timely occur; however, if such is not accomplished, the parties would, in such circumstance, notify this Court and submit a proposed modified scheduling order to resume the litigation proceedings. This approach would avoid the need for a new lawsuit relative to the parties' dispute, and the corresponding expenditure of judicial resources and litigant expense should the case unexpectedly resume.
The parties are in agreement on this matter, and thus submit this stipulation, motion, and proposed order jointly.
II. AUTHORITY FOR MOTION
"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). "How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain even balance. Id., citing Kansas City Southern Ry. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931) and Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 382 (1935).
In this case, the requested stay serves the interests of economy of time and effort for this Court and for the litigants (as well as their counsel), because it allows for the completion of an agreement for the resolution of all settlement of all claims, defenses, and issues in the above-captioned case. As Plaintiff and Defendant are in agreement on the stay request, it would not cause either party any undue hardship. The requested stay period of sixty (60) days is moderate and not excessive, such that, if it was to become necessary, this 2017-filed case would still be subject to an expedient trial. Further, it would avoid the need for the filing of a second lawsuit, starting the litigation proceedings anew, should the settlement agreement not be performed as projected (though such is not expected by the parties to occur).
Accordingly, good cause exists for this Court's entry of an order staying the proceedings in this above-captioned matter for a period of sixty (60) days, i.e., until January 29, 2018.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Parties jointly request that this Court stay this litigation for a period of sixty (60) days, i.e., until January 29, 2018, to allow for the parties to finalize, perform, and complete their settlement agreement.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Therefore, good cause appearing and to allow for the parties to finalize, perform, and complete their settlement agreement, the above-captioned case, in its entirety, is stayed for a period of sixty (60) days, i.e., until January 29, 2018.
