Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ferrie v. Woodford Research, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

November 15, 2019

DOUGLAS FERRIE, an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
WOODFORD RESEARCH, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company; HUBERT SENTERS, an individual; KAREN ARVIN, an individual; ROSS GIVENS, an individual; JARED CARTER, an individual; DPT INNOVATIONS, LLC d/b/a ARBITRAGING.CO, a foreign company; DAVID PETERSON a/k/a JEREMY ROUNSVILLE, an individual; HORIZON TRUST COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; GREG HERLEAN, an individual; DANIEL ENSIGN, an individual; INFOGENESIS CONSULTING GROUP, LLC; a Nevada limited liability company; KURT F. WEINRICH, SR., an individual, Defendants.

          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 Company LLC

          STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING MEDIATION

          Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge

         Plaintiff, 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.

         “The 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).

         Here, 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, [1] 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.

         ORDER

         IT IS 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 conference.

---------

Notes:

[1] Defendants Woodford Research, LLC, Hubert Senters, Karen Arvin, Ross Givens, and Jared Carter filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's complaint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.