Order re administrative motion for clarification of deadline — OTO Analytics v. Benworth (N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-03975)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:24-cv-03975-AMO · Doc. 40 · 2024-08-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
OTO ANALYTICS, LLC, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, 
Defendant. 
Case No.  24-cv-03975-AMO    
 
 
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 
DEADLINE 
Re: Dkt. No. 26 
 
 
Before the Court is Respondent Benworth Capital Partners, LLC (“Benworth”) motion to 
clarify the deadline to respond to Oto Analytics, LLC’s (“Womply”) Petition to Confirm 
Arbitration Award, filed July 22, 2024.  ECF 26.   
On July 1, 2024, Womply filed a petition to confirm a June 26, 2024 arbitral award 
pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9.  ECF 1.  Benworth waived service on July 5, 2024, ECF 15, and 
contends that, consequently, it has 60 days to respond to the Petition.  ECF 26 at 2.  It moves to 
clarify that the deadline for it to respond to the Petition is no earlier than September 3, 2024.  Id. at 
5.  Womply maintains that a petition to confirm an arbitration award is considered a motion, and 
thus the 14-day deadline in Civil Local Rule 7-3 applies to Benworth’s response.  ECF 35. 
The FAA provides for petitions to confirm arbitral awards to be treated as motions, not 
complaints.  See 9 U.S.C. § 6 (“Any application to the court hereunder shall be made and heard in 
the manner provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except as otherwise herein 
expressly provided.”).  However, Petitioner failed to file or notice a motion pursuant to Local 
Rules 7-1 and 7-2.  See Civil L.R. 7-2(a) (“[A]ll motions must be filed, served and noticed in 
writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after filing 
of the motion.”).  Thus, no obligation was created for Benworth to respond within the fourteen-
Case 3:24-cv-03975-AMO   Document 40   Filed 08/15/24   Page 1 of 2

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
day deadline provided for by Local Rule 7-3(a).  See Bridgeport Mgmt., Inc. v. Lake Mathews 
Min. Properties, Ltd., No. 14-CV-00070-JST, 2014 WL 953831, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) 
(“The Petition was, in essence, an improperly filed and improperly noticed motion, and it did not 
impose on Respondents any obligations to respond.  Its only effect was to open the case file.  If 
Petitioner wanted more, it was obligated to request more—such as by filing a separate motion [to 
confirm the arbitration award], or by noticing a hearing in compliance with the Court’s local 
rules.”).   
On August 12, 2024, Womply filed a notice of hearing.  ECF 37.  However, Womply has 
failed to file and notice a motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2.  Accordingly, the Court 
STRIKES the notice of hearing and TERMINATES Bentworth’s administrative motion to 
clarify the deadline.  Benworth will have fourteen days to respond to a motion properly noticed 
and filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3. 
The Court notes that it is currently setting motion hearings in January 2025 and reminds 
the parties that their case may be resolved more quickly if they consent to magistrate judge 
jurisdiction.  The parties may consent at any time to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge 
of their choice, for all purposes, including entry of final judgment.  See Civil L.R. 73-1(b).  That 
one party refused to consent to a magistrate judge assigned off-the-wheel does not foreclose a 
different magistrate judge assignment.1 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: August 15, 2024 
 
 
 
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN 
United States District Judge 
 
1 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.  
Case 3:24-cv-03975-AMO   Document 40   Filed 08/15/24   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.431982.40.0.pdf

Size

91,310 bytes

SHA-256

8c0b2bd6267b5079edf75fcbcba9e17ea43f082ba19825ba9d1b6824aa03c5f8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.431982.40.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)