Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 7, 2023

McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. Proof Mark, Inc

Judge
Cisneros
Docket
3:23-cv-00010
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. ProofMark, Inc., Judge Cisneros ordered binding arbitration and stayed the case without deciding the underlying dispute.

Who this affects

McConnell & Malek Enterprises and ProofMark, Inc.; the case is paused while they arbitrate their dispute.

What happened

McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. ProofMark, Inc. involved the parties’ agreement to submit their entire dispute to binding arbitration with the American Arbitration Association.

The parties asked the court to cancel previously ordered mediation, stay the court case while arbitration proceeded, and withdraw ProofMark’s pending motion to compel arbitration as moot. They also agreed to limit discovery and court requests during the stay.

Judge Lisa J. Cisneros ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration and stayed further proceedings. The order did not decide the underlying dispute, and it required the parties to submit status reports.

The detailed version

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

Case
McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. Proof Mark, Inc · No. 3:23-cv-00010
Judge
Cisneros
Date
July 7, 2023

Background

McConnell & Malek Enterprises, doing business as SFDF Consultants, sued ProofMark, Inc., doing business as Proof Analytics. The opinion text does not describe the underlying claims or the merits of the dispute. The parties jointly asked the court to replace court-ordered mediation with binding arbitration under the American Arbitration Association.

The Parties’ Agreement

The parties agreed to arbitrate the entire matter under American Arbitration Association Case 01-23-0000-0989. They asked the court to vacate its April 5, 2023, and June 2, 2023, orders requiring mediation. They also agreed that ProofMark’s pending motion to compel arbitration, which had been scheduled for a hearing on August 15, 2023, was moot and withdrawn by ProofMark.

The parties requested a stay, meaning a pause, in the court proceedings until arbitration concluded. During the stay, they agreed not to seek discovery except as allowed or agreed to in arbitration, not to seek other relief from the court except relief needed to enforce an arbitration award, and not to individually move to dismiss the case. The stipulation allowed either party to ask the court to address noncompliance with the agreement or to lift the stay if necessary.

Ruling

Judge Lisa J. Cisneros ordered the parties to proceed immediately to binding arbitration and stayed further proceedings on the merits pending the final resolution of arbitration. The order also required a mutual status report within six months and another report within 20 days after arbitration concluded, unless the earlier report or a court order controlled. The order did not resolve the underlying dispute or decide any claim on the merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.