United States District Court, W.D. Washington
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC Beth E. Terrell David C.
Silver Todd R. Friedman Attorneys for Plaintiff
K&L GATES LLP Michael D. McKay Aaron E. Millstein
Attorneys for Defendants Woodford Research, LLC, Hubert
Senters, Karen Arvin, Ross Givens, and Jared Carter
RUSSELL LAW OFFICES Robie G. Russell Attorneys for Defendants
InfoGenesis Consulting Group, LLC and Kurt F. Weinrich, Sr.
WALTERKIPLING PLLC Michael E. Kipling, Marjorie A. Walter
Attorneys for Defendants Greg Herlean and Horizon Trust
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
B. Leighton United States District Judge
Douglas Ferrie, and Defendants, Woodford Research LLC, Hubert
Senters, Karen Arvin, Ross Givens, Jared Carter, Horizon
Trust Company LLC, Greg Herlean, Infogenesis Consulting Group
LLC, and Kurt Weinrich, Sr., by and through their counsel,
have been conferring and have determined that their dispute
is amenable to mediation. As such, pursuant to LCR 10(g) and
39.1(c)(1) they now jointly seek a short stay of proceedings
to allow the mediation to take place. This District
encourages early and less expensive approaches to resolving
disputes, finding that “the use of alternative dispute
resolution procedures promotes timely and affordable justice
while reducing calendar congestion.” LCR 39.1(a)(1);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 651, et seq.
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 N. Am. Co., 299
U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). In
exercising this power, the Court must “weigh competing
interests and maintain an even balance.” Id.
at 255. Five factors inform the Court's decision: (1) the
plaintiff's interests in proceeding expeditiously with
the action balanced against prejudice to the plaintiff
resulting from the delay; (2) the burden on defendants; (3)
the convenience to the Court; (4) the interests of any
non-parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public
interest. Koulouris v. Builders Fence Co., 146 F.R.D. 193,
194 (W.D. Wash. 1991).
the Parties move jointly to stay proceedings until
mid-December pending the outcome of a good-faith attempt to
resolve or narrow their dispute with the help of a mediator.
Many defendants have not yet answered,  discovery has not
yet commenced, and no trial date has been set. Under these
circumstances, neither Plaintiff nor the moving Defendants
will be prejudiced or unduly burdened by the requested stay.
Further, mediation has the potential to save the Court time
and promote judicial efficiency. Finally, the moving parties
are aware of no non-parties with particular interests that
would be impacted by the stay. Plaintiff and the moving
Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court
vacate the pending deadlines and stay proceedings until
December 20, 2019. If no resolution is achieved, the Parties
will advise the Court and seek a status conference.
SO ORDERED that the pending deadlines are vacated, and
proceedings are stayed until December 20, 2019, at which time
the parties will advise the Court and seek a status
 Defendants Woodford Research, LLC,
Hubert Senters, Karen Arvin, Ross Givens, and Jared Carter
filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's