IMAGENETIX, INC., Plaintiff, v. GNC PARENT, LLC; GNC CORP.; GENERAL NUTRITION CENTERS, INC.; GENERAL NUTRITION CORP.; GNC HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 14,000, inclusive, Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. California.

July 18, 2012.

Imagenetix, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Erwin Jay Shustak, Shustak Frost & Partners, P.C. & Robert L. Hill, Shustak and Partners.

GNC Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin V DeSantis, Butz Dunn DeSantis and Bingham & Robert Michael Tyler, McGuireWoods LLP, PRO HAC VICE.

DOES, 1-4,000, inclusive, Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Tyler, McGuireWoods LLP, PRO HAC VICE.

GNC Parent, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin V DeSantis, Butz Dunn DeSantis and Bingham & Robert Michael Tyler, McGuireWoods LLP, PRO HAC VICE.

GNC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin V DeSantis, Butz Dunn DeSantis and Bingham & Robert Michael Tyler, McGuireWoods LLP, PRO HAC VICE.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin V DeSantis, Butz Dunn DeSantis and Bingham & Robert Michael Tyler, McGuireWoods LLP, PRO HAC VICE.

General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin V DeSantis, Butz Dunn DeSantis and Bingham & Robert Michael Tyler, McGuireWoods LLP, PRO HAC VICE.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge.

Legal Standard for a Motion to Stay

The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, "the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed." Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These interests include: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id. "Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both." Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; see also Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1109-1110.

The Court concludes that the efficient administration of justice is best served by denying GNC's motion for a stay. See, e.g., Landis, 299 U.S. at 255 ("Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both."); see also Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1109-1110. Imagenetix and TriPharma cannot predict how long it will take for the recently initiated second arbitration proceeding to reach a resolution. Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864 ("A stay should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time."). Furthermore, Imagenetix has an interest in pursuing discovery in this litigation to determine how GNC obtained the rights it claims to have in the Trisynex® mark. The Court concludes that staying this case would unduly delay Imagenetix from pursuing its claims against GNC. See Yong, 208 F.3d at 1121 (providing that a stay would unduly burden a party seeking relief because a stay would deny the party timely resolution of their claim). Accordingly, the Court denies GNC's motion to stay this litigation.

Conclusion

After carefully reviewing the parties' papers and arguments, the Court concludes that the facts of this case do not justify a stay. Accordingly, the Court denies GNC's motion to institute a stay in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.