Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
StockX LLC filed two motions in Daniel Mansfield's action against it in the Northern District of California: a Motion to Compel Arbitration, docketed at No. 54, and a separate Motion to Stay Discovery Deadlines, docketed at No. 56. The order resolves only the stay request. It does not decide whether the dispute must be arbitrated, and it leaves the motion to compel arbitration pending for another day.
The court explained the governing standard: district courts have discretion to order a stay during the pendency of a motion to compel arbitration when that motion is potentially dispositive and can be resolved without additional discovery, citing Chan v. Panera, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-04194-JLS-AJR, 2024 WL 4328827, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024). The question was therefore not whether a stay could ever be appropriate, but whether StockX's conduct justified the court exercising its discretion in StockX's favor here.
The timing facts drove the analysis. StockX learned of the basis for its arbitration motion in January 2026, according to a declaration the court cited at Dkt. No. 64-1. StockX argued that it did not complete its investigation and determine that Mansfield had consented to StockX's Terms and arbitration agreement until after the Initial Case Management Conference in March. The court found that explanation did not account for why StockX waited until October to bring the stay motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court declined to exercise its discretion to enter a stay because StockX was not diligent in moving for one. Although StockX argued that the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations during part of the nine-month period, the court noted that the litigation was not stayed during those negotiations and the parties continued to actively pursue discovery. In that period, StockX took advantage of the litigation process by seeking discovery from Mansfield, and Mansfield invested significant resources into discovery and the litigation as well, as reflected in Dkt. Nos. 61-1 and 65-1.
The court drew a timing-based distinction: a stay might have been appropriate if StockX had sought it promptly after discovering the basis for its arbitration motion, but it was not appropriate now. The operative ruling was concise and unequivocal: 'The motion is DENIED,' followed by 'IT IS SO ORDERED.' The order is dated November 5, 2026.
The scope of the ruling is limited. The court did not rule on the underlying Motion to Compel Arbitration, did not decide whether Mansfield consented to StockX's Terms or arbitration agreement, and imposed no broader restriction on StockX's ability to pursue that separate motion. Only the request to stay discovery deadlines was denied.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may stay litigation during a potentially dispositive motion to compel arbitration that can be resolved without additional discovery, but it is not required to do so.
- StockX's knowledge of the basis for arbitration in January 2026 and its delay until October were central to the denial of the stay.
- The court rejected the explanation that completing its investigation after the March case management conference justified the entire nine-month delay.
- Settlement negotiations did not support a stay because the litigation was not stayed and the parties continued actively pursuing discovery during those negotiations.
- The denial concerned only the discovery-deadline stay and did not resolve StockX's separate motion to compel arbitration.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how diligence can determine whether a court exercises its discretion to pause litigation while arbitration is being sought. A party that continues using discovery, and allows its opponent to invest substantial resources in the litigation, may undermine its later request to halt the process, even where an earlier stay might have been appropriate.
For this case, the practical result is that StockX's requested stay of discovery deadlines was denied outright. The order leaves the merits of arbitration for the separate motion to compel and supplies no ruling on whether Mansfield consented to StockX's terms or arbitration agreement.