UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION
CYVA RESEARCH HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCKLIZARD LIMITED,

AUCTIONARMS.COM, INC.,

Case No. 2:15-cv-1541-JRG

LEAD CASE

Case No. 2:15-cv-1941-JRG

MEMBER CASE

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
AND/OR MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Before the Court is the Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of
Defendants Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 401, Motion) filed
by AuctionArms.Com, Inc. (Defendant or Auction). Having considered the same, and for the
following reasons, Auctions Motion is DENIED.
Auction filed this emergency motion to stay on March 3, 2016. Specifically, Auction
styled its Motion as an emergency motion. In its Motion, Auction alleges that the circumstances
of this case merit a stay of proceedings because two motions pending before the Court have the
potential to resolve the case or remove the case from this Court. However, Auction filed its
emergency motion to stay a mere two weeks after it filed the pending motionsAuction filed its
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint on February 17, 2016, and its Motion to Transfer Venue
on February 22, 2016.

All references to the docket are to Case No. 2:14-cv-1541 unless otherwise indicated.

Auction is incorrect in at least one significant respect: this is not an emergency. The mere
fact that pending motionswhich are not even fully briefedmight resolve the case or might
result in transfer of the case does not elevate the posture of this case to that of an emergency
situation. To recklessly assert an emergency when there is no basis is at a minimum poor practice
and at a maximum perilously close to making sanctionable misrepresentations to the Court. To
allege that a situation is an emergency exacts a cost on the Court and its staff to the detriment of
the Courts ability to manage and control its docket. When a party asserts an emergency, the
Court must disrupt its schedule and afford immediate attention to that matter. This takes the
Court away from other fully briefed and ripe issues. Said another way, it disrupts the allocation
and expenditure of limited judicial resources. An emergency situation does not arise merely
because motions are pending before the Court. Nor does an emergency situation arise merely
because the parties must continue to litigate, including complying with Markman and invalidity
contention deadlines, while motions are pending before the Court.
Auction was served with a summons in this case on December 3, 2015. (Dkt. No. 7 in
2:15-cv-1941.) Its answer was due on December 24, 2015. Id. However, Auction did not file its
motion to dismiss the complaint until February 17, 2016, long after its deadline to answer had
passed. See (Dkt. No. 22.) As to the motion to transfer venue, Auction could have filed such a
motion at any time after it had been served, but chose not to file the motion until three months
after it was served and two months after its answer deadline. How it could have thoughtfully
considered its motion to stay a true emergency is a mystery to this Court.
Additionally, Auction has not opposed two separate motions by Plaintiff to extend time to
file a response as to Auctions motion to change venue. See (Dkt. Nos. 13, 15 in 2:15-cv-1941.)
If this were truly an emergency situation, the Court assumes that Auction would have opposed

such requests to extend time in the interest of completing briefing on the venue issue so that
the Court could more quickly take up the motion to transfer.
.
Auctions actions belie its allegation that the situation in this case is an authentic
emergency. As officers of the Court, counsel have a duty not to make unfounded assertions of an
emergency when none exists. Auction and its counsel would be well served to reflect upon
this duty and its consequences going forward.
The

Court

hereby

DENIES

Defendants Emergency Motion to Stay Pending

Resolution of Defendants Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 40.)

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of March, 2016.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE