United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
is Defendants' Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. Doc.
#28. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
On November 21, 2017, the Court denied Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration. Doc. #24. On December 5, 2017,
Defendants, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1), filed a
Notice of Appeal, appealing this Court's November 21,
2017 Order to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Doc. #26.
Contemporaneously, Defendants filed the pending motion, which
seeks a stay pending appeal. Doc. #28. Although
Defendants' motion stated Plaintiff did not agree to the
relief sought by Defendants' motion, Plaintiff did not
file any opposition to the pending motion, and the time for
doing so has passed. See L.R. 7.0(c)(2).
Accordingly, Defendants' motion is ripe for
to the Federal Arbitration Act, a party may appeal a district
court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. 9
U.S.C. § 16(a)(1). Defendants argue this matter should
be stayed pending their appeal because this Court lacks
jurisdiction during the pendency of the appeal.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not decided whether an
appeal from a denial of a motion to compel arbitration
divests the district court of jurisdiction. But the majority
of circuit courts considering the issue have decided a notice
of appeal from a district court's denial of a motion to
compel arbitration divests the district court of
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Levin v. Alms & Assocs.,
Inc., 634 F.3d 260, 265-66 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding the
district court is divested of jurisdiction when a
non-frivolous appeal under the Federal Arbitration Act is
filed); Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F.3d
207, 214-15 (3d Cir. 2007); Hardin v. First Cash Fin.
Servs., Inc., 465 F.3d 470, 474 (10th Cir. 2006) (same);
Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249,
1253 (11th Cir. 2004) (same); Bradford-Scott Data Corp.
v. Physician Comput. Network, Inc., 128 F.3d 504, 506
(7th Cir. 1997) (same); see also Wells Enters., Inc. v.
Olympic Ice Cream, No. C11-4109, 2013 WL 11256866, at
*2-3 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 1, 2013). Three circuit courts have
found the notice of appeal from a district court's denial
of a motion to compel arbitration does not divest the
district court of jurisdiction. See Weingarten Realty
Inv'rs v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904, 909-10 (5th Cir.
2011); Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39,
54 (2d Cir. 2004); Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp.,
916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir.1990). This Court finds the
reasoning set forth by the majority of circuit courts
compelling, and concludes its jurisdiction is divested by
Defendants' filing of a notice of appeal. For this
reason, Defendants' motion to stay is granted.
the Court's jurisdiction was not divested by
Defendants' filing of a notice of appeal, the Court has
the inherent power to control its trial docket and stay
proceedings in the interests of justice and judicial economy.
See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55
(1936) (stating “the power to stay proceedings is
incidental to the power inherent in every court to control
the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of
time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.”); Lunde v. Helms, 898 F.2d 1343,
1345 (8th Cir. 1990). At a minimum, a stay under these
circumstances will prevent waste of resources and reduce
uncertainty. Until the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has
determined whether this Court properly denied Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration, there is no reasonable
justification for the parties (as well as this Court) to
dedicate additional resources to this matter. For this
additional reason, Defendants' motion to stay is granted.
foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to stay is granted.
This matter is stayed pending the issuance of a mandate by
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to
Defendants' pending appeal.
 Additional background facts are set
forth in the Court's Order and Opinion dated November 21,