American Honda Motor v. The Coast Distribution System (PDF of opinion) Judge White Coast moved to stay its litigation with Honda until after the ITC hearing that Honda initiated against Wuxi Kipor Power, CoastÃ¢â?¬â?¢s supplier. Because Coast is not a party to the ITC hearing, 28 U.S.C. Ã?Â§ 1659(a) does not apply. If the statute did apply, and the motion was filed in a timely manner (30 days), the district court would have to stay any issues also being litigated at the ITC. In this short opinion, Judge White points out that the district court has inherent power to stay the litigation so he correctly goes through the proper analysis. Honda argued irreparable harm due to loss of goodwill and erosion of market share. An injunction is being sought by Honda, which was substantial for Judge White to conclude Honda may be harmed if the litigation was stayed. Coast argued it would Ã¢â?¬Å?suffer great hardship and inconvenience because of duplicative discovery requests from Honda in the ITC proceeding and in this lawsuit.Ã¢â?¬Â? This was CoastÃ¢â?¬â?¢s only argument so it did not prevail because
[T]he hardship attendant with being forced to defend a lawsuit is irrelevant when considering whether to grant a stay.
Lastly, the non-binding effect of the ITC ruling and the fact that the ITC hearing will conclude much before the current case will go to trial led to Judge WhiteÃ¢â?¬â?¢s conclusion that a stay would not further the orderly course of justice.