Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 12, 2026

ATS PRODUCTS, INC. v. ATS PRODUCTS, INC.

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:26-cv-00494
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
6

Counsel5 of record
PLAINTIFF
Mark T. Jansen Kirsch & Jansen, LLP
Paul F. Kirsch Kirsch & Jansen, LLP
Pilar Stillwater Live Oak Law Office LLP
DEFENDANT
Jonathan Nguyen , I. Bowman and Brooke LLP
Neil M. Kliebenstein Bowman and Brooke LLP

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.

Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Judge Gilliam stayed ATS Products v. Fiber Glass Systems until a Texas court rules on ATS’s motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

ATS Products, Inc. and Fiber Glass Systems, L.P.; the California case is paused, Fiber Glass Systems may refile its motion to dismiss or transfer, and the parties must report after the Texas court rules.

What happened

ATS Products, Inc. sued Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. in this later-filed California action. The parties told the court that an earlier Texas action involved the same parties, circumstances, and claims.

The parties jointly asked to pause the California case while the Southern District of Texas considered ATS’s pending motion to dismiss the earlier action. Fiber Glass Systems withdrew its California motion to dismiss or transfer, without prejudice to refiling later.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the stipulation and stayed the case. The parties must file a joint status report within 14 days after the Texas court decides ATS’s motion, and existing deadlines were taken off the calendar.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
ATS PRODUCTS, INC. v. ATS PRODUCTS, INC. · No. 4:26-cv-00494
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Mar. 12, 2026

Background

ATS Products, Inc. filed this action, which Fiber Glass Systems, L.P. removed to the Northern District of California. The parties stated that Fiber Glass Systems had previously filed an action in the Southern District of Texas involving the same parties, circumstances, and claims. ATS had filed a motion to dismiss that Texas action, and the motion was fully briefed and awaiting decision.

Stipulation

The parties jointly requested a stay under the federal first-filed case doctrine. That doctrine can support pausing a later-filed case while an earlier case involving substantially similar parties and issues proceeds. The parties said a stay would avoid inconsistent results, duplicative litigation, and unnecessary use of judicial and party resources.

Fiber Glass Systems also withdrew its pending California motion to dismiss or transfer. The withdrawal was without prejudice to refiling the motion after the Texas court ruled on ATS’s motion to dismiss. The order also preserved Fiber Glass Systems’ right to dispute, after that future ruling, whether venue or jurisdiction were proper in the California action.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the parties’ stipulation and stayed the California case pending the Southern District of Texas’s decision on ATS’s motion to dismiss. The court withdrew Fiber Glass Systems’ motion to dismiss or transfer without prejudice to refiling after the Texas ruling. The parties must file a joint status report within 14 days after the Texas court issues its decision. All deadlines previously set by the California court were taken off the calendar and will be reset as appropriate after the stay is lifted. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the merits of either motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.