1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OTO ANALYTICS, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-03975-AMO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

9 v. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF

DEADLINE

10 BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 26 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Respondent Benworth Capital Partners, LLC (“Benworth”) motion to 14 clarify the deadline to respond to Oto Analytics, LLC’s (“Womply”) Petition to Confirm 15 Arbitration Award, filed July 22, 2024. ECF 26. 16 On July 1, 2024, Womply filed a petition to confirm a June 26, 2024 arbitral award 17 pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9. ECF 1. Benworth waived service on July 5, 2024, ECF 15, and 18 contends that, consequently, it has 60 days to respond to the Petition. ECF 26 at 2. It moves to 19 clarify that the deadline for it to respond to the Petition is no earlier than September 3, 2024. Id. at 20 5. Womply maintains that a petition to confirm an arbitration award is considered a motion, and 21 thus the 14-day deadline in Civil Local Rule 7-3 applies to Benworth’s response. ECF 35. 22 The FAA provides for petitions to confirm arbitral awards to be treated as motions, not 23 complaints. See 9 U.S.C. § 6 (“Any application to the court hereunder shall be made and heard in 24 the manner provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except as otherwise herein 25 expressly provided.”). However, Petitioner failed to file or notice a motion pursuant to Local 26 Rules 7-1 and 7-2. See Civil L.R. 7-2(a) (“[A]ll motions must be filed, served and noticed in 27 writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after filing 1 day deadline provided for by Local Rule 7-3(a). See Bridgeport Mgmt., Inc. v. Lake Mathews 2 || Min. Properties, Ltd., No. 14-CV-00070-JST, 2014 WL 953831, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) 3 (“The Petition was, in essence, an improperly filed and improperly noticed motion, and it did not 4 || impose on Respondents any obligations to respond. Its only effect was to open the case file. If 5 Petitioner wanted more, it was obligated to request more—such as by filing a separate motion [to 6 || confirm the arbitration award], or by noticing a hearing in compliance with the Court’s local 7 || rules.”). 8 On August 12, 2024, Womply filed a notice of hearing. ECF 37. However, Womply has 9 || failed to file and notice a motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2. Accordingly, the Court 10 || STRIKES the notice of hearing and TERMINATES Bentworth’s administrative motion to 11 clarify the deadline. Benworth will have fourteen days to respond to a motion properly noticed 12 and filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3. 13 The Court notes that it is currently setting motion hearings in January 2025 and reminds 14 || the parties that their case may be resolved more quickly if they consent to magistrate judge 15 || jurisdiction. The parties may consent at any time to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge a 16 || of their choice, for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See Civil L.R. 73-1(b). That 3 17 one party refused to consent to a magistrate judge assigned off-the-wheel does not foreclose a 18 different magistrate judge assignment.! 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 15, 2024 22 Wed / 7

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN

24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 ' The Court’s order relating Benworth Capital Partners, LLC v. Oto Analytics, LLC, 24-cv-04840, ECF 39, does not impact the parties’ ability to consent to a magistrate judge.