United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
City of Albany ("the City") brought suit against
defendant CH2M Hill, Inc. ("CH2M") in Linn County
Circuit Court alleging claims for breach of contract,
professional negligence, attorney fees, and reckless
misrepresentation, Defendant removed this case to federal
court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, (doc. 1)
Plaintiff successfully moved to remand the case back to state
court based on the exclusive language of the venue selection
clause in the agreements between the parties, (doc. 11)
Defendant now seeks to stay the remand for the pendency of
it's appeal in the Ninth Circuit. For the reasons set
forth below, defendant's Motion for Stay (doc. 14) is
background of this case has been covered extensively in the
previous order. In summary, the substance of the lawsuit
concerns an engineering contract between plaintiff, City of
Albany ("the City"), and defendant, CH2M Hill, Inc.
("CH2M") to oversee the construction of two
infrastructure projects: a new wastewater treatment plant and
a 30-acre wetland. The City initially filed this lawsuit in
Linn County, Oregon, pursuant to a forum selection clause in
the contracts at issue. Defendant removed the action to
federal court in the District of Oregon, Eugene Division,
asserting diversity jurisdiction (doc 1).
parties made two agreements, the first on May 15, 2005, and
the second on October 12, 2006. Both agreements contained
identical venue selection clauses, as follows: "The laws
of Oregon shall govern the validity of this agreement, its
interpretation and performance, and other claims related to
it. Venue for litigation shall be in Linn County,
Oregon." Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand (doc.
5) arguing the venue selection clause in the two agreements
mandates Oregon Circuit Court in Linn County as proper venue
for their dispute.
agreed, and granted the remand motion on March 30, 2018.
(doc. 11) I also ordered a temporary stay so that this formal
motion could be brought and briefed, Defendant argues that
this Court should stay that remand until the defendant's
appeal has proceeded in the Ninth Circuit, because of the
risk of duplicative litigation. Plaintiff contends that the
stay is unnecessary, as success on the merits is unlikely and
the City would prefer a speedy resolution of the matter in
light of its' mounting costs.
granting of a stay is entirely at the discretion of the
Court. "A stay is not a matter of right, even if
irreparable injury might otherwise result ... It is instead
an exercise of judicial discretion, and the propriety of its
issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular
case." Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1164
(9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations
omitted) (alterations normalized). "The standard for
evaluating an injunction pending appeal is similar to that
employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a
preliminary injunction." Feldman v. Arizona
Secretary of State's Office, 843 F.3d 366, 367 (9th
Cir, 2016) (en banc). Court's consider four
factors in determining whether to grant a stay pending
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that
he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3)
whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the
other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the
public interest lies.
Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 496, 498 (9th Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
first two factors cany more weight as "the most
critical," and the latter two are addressed only when
the movant offers a strong showing on the first two. Nken
v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35.
the analysis for stays and preliminary injunctions are
similar, "a stay simply suspends judicial alteration of
the status quo, . . . injunctive relief grants judicial
intervention that has been withheld by lower courts."
Id. at 429 (internal quotation marks omitted)
asserts that the interests of comity between the state and
federal courts require a stay of the remand while CH2M's
appeal proceeds, and that an immediate ...