Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Mohit Randhawa Aka Harpal Singh, and Shannon Callnet Pvt Ltd v. Skylux Inc.
December 9, 2011
MOHIT RANDHAWA AKA HARPAL SINGH, AND SHANNON CALLNET PVT LTD,
SKYLUX INC., INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE, INC., MUJEEB PUZHAKKARAILLATH, SKYLUX TELELINK PVT LTD, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiffs Mohit Randhawa aka Harpal Singh and Shannon Callnet Pvt. Ltd. ("Shannon Callnet") filed this action against defendants Interactive Intelligence, Inc. ("Interactive"), Skylux, Inc., Mujeeb Puzhakkaraillath, and Skylux Telelink Pvt. Ltd. (the latter three collectively "Skylux defendants"), alleging state law claims arising from contracts for an India-based calling center and software. On October 18, 2010, the court stayed all claims against Interactive, which are subject to arbitration, and all claims against the Skylux defendants, which are not subject to arbitration. (Docket No. 102.) In June of 2011, the court continued a Status Conference set for June 27, 2011, to December 12, 2011, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report no later than two weeks before the conference. (Docket No. 116.)
Only Interactive has filed a status report. (Docket No. 117.) According to that report, an initial prehearing conference was held with the arbitrator on October 12, 2011. (Id. ¶ 8.) At the conference, Shannon Callnet was instructed to file an amended complaint with the arbitrator by November 11, 2011, and a timeline for the arbitration was set. Interactive proposes that the court continue the stay and set another status conference six months from now. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Interactive's status report does not give an estimate of when arbitration proceedings will conclude. This action has already been stayed for over a year and the arbitration proceeding is only now commencing. As it appears that the action will be in arbitration for the foreseeable future, this case shall be ordered administratively closed. See Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he 'effect of an administrative closure is no different from a simple stay, except that it affects the count of active cases pending on the court's docket; i.e., administratively closed cases are not counted as active.'" (discussing and quoting Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004))).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter shall be STAYED. The currently pending motion filing deadline and pretrial conference and trial dates are hereby vacated. The Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively close this case, to be reopened upon request and application of the parties and order of this court.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For