Teleport Mobility, Inc. v. Sywula
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-00874
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Teleport Mobility v. Sywula, Judge Illston denied plaintiffs’ motion to lift the arbitration stay because arbitration was proceeding and not shown delayed.
Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC must continue with the arbitration process rather than resume the federal court proceedings at this stage; Krzysztof Sywula remains involved in the arbitration.
What happened
In Teleport Mobility, Inc. v. Sywula, the court had previously ordered the parties to arbitrate and stayed the federal case. Plaintiffs asked the court to end the stay so it could consider whether Sywula should be held in civil contempt.
Plaintiffs argued that Sywula’s filings in other courts violated the order requiring arbitration. Sywula responded that those filings involved different parties and claims. The court also noted that arbitration was moving forward and that an arbitrator had been appointed.
Judge Susan Illston denied plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. She found that plaintiffs had not shown that arbitration was significantly delayed, while noting that they could seek to lift the stay later if arbitration was being used to cause delay or if the arbitrator determined that some claims belonged in court.
The detailed version
- Teleport Mobility, Inc. v. Sywula · No. 3:21-cv-00874
- Susan Illston
- Sept. 30, 2021
Background
Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC sued Krzysztof Sywula on claims involving alleged trade-secret violations, breach of contract, unauthorized computer-data access, trademark violations, conversion, interference with contractual relations, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair business practices. The court previously granted Sywula’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the federal proceedings before Sywula filed an answer or counterclaim.
Plaintiffs later moved to lift, or end, the stay so the court could consider whether Sywula should be held in civil contempt. The motion concerned filings plaintiffs said Sywula made in San Diego Superior Court and the Southern District of California in violation of the order compelling arbitration. Sywula argued that the filings involved different parties and claims. The court resolved the motion without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that it has authority to control the progress of cases on its docket, including by staying litigation. It found that plaintiffs had not shown that the arbitration process was significantly delayed. The court noted that JAMS had appointed the Honorable Jonathan Cannon as arbitrator on September 7, 2021, and that plaintiffs did not argue that arbitration had stopped after the appointment. The court also noted that Sywula had participated in arbitration-related discussions and meetings.
Disposition
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. The order did not decide the underlying claims or whether Sywula was in contempt. It stated that plaintiffs could later seek to lift the stay if arbitration was being used merely to delay the case, or if the arbitrator determined that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that some claims should be litigated in court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.