Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated, C15-612RBL. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20190913g78 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER RONALD B. LEIGHTON , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion. The Court previously stayed discovery in this case (other than pre-amendment, outstanding discovery by Kater to Churchill Downs), pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration of the claims in plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Court today STAYED this cases companion case, Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Casino, et al., Cause No. 19-199RBL, pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of sim
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion. The Court previously stayed discovery in this case (other than pre-amendment, outstanding discovery by Kater to Churchill Downs), pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration of the claims in plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The Court today STAYED this cases companion case, Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Casino, et al., Cause No. 19-199RBL, pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of similar issues in a similar case, Wilson v. Huuuge, Cause No. 18-5276RBL. Huuuge was recently argued before the Ninth Circuit. Defendants have since re-noted their pending Motion to Compel Arbitration for October 11, presumably anticipating that the Ninth Circuit might rule in Huuuge before this Court rules in this case.

The Court agrees with that approach. It will sua sponte STAY this case, pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Huuuge. The pending motion [Dkt. # 100] is TERMINATED without resolution, and Defendants may re-file (or revise) their motion to compel after the Ninth Circuit decides Huuuge. The parties may also weigh in on whether the Court should also await the Ninth Circuit's decisions in Benson v. Double Down Interactive LLC, et.al., Cause No. 18-cv-0525RBL and Wilson v Playtika, Cause No. 18-5277RBL.

The parties' stipulation [Dkt. # 118] regarding the outstanding discovery remains in place, and this Order should not be read to apply to ongoing, previously-permitted discovery. The goal is to delay the motion to compel and any other motion practice until Huuuge is decided.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer