Maha Elregragui Moqaddem v. Albert Gregory Pinto et al.

Filing 125

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE STAYED IN LIGHT OF CONCURRENT STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 7/12/2021, Albert Gregory Pinto filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Maha Elregragui Moqaddem, also known as Maha Visconti, asserting state law tort claims (the "State Court Action"). In light of the parties' active litigation of the State Court Action, the parties are ORDERED to show cause why this act ion should not be stayed pending resolution of the parallel state court action. The parties shall file their responses by 2/2/2023. By the same date, Pinto is further ORDERED to provide this Court with a copy of the order issued by the Superior Court resolving his motion to strike and dismiss, if any. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 22-1808-DMG (JEMx)

Date

Title Maha Elregragui Moqaddem v. Albert Gregory Pinto, et al.

Present: The Honorable

January 19, 2023
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS— ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE STAYED IN LIGHT OF CONCURRENT STATE
COURT PROCEEDINGS
On July 12, 2021, Albert Gregory Pinto filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior
Court against Maha Elregragui Moqaddem, also known as Maha Visconti, asserting state law tort
claims (the “State Court Action”). [See Doc. # 6.] On February 18, 2022, Moqaddem filed an
action, also in Los Angeles County Superior Court, asserting state law tort claims against Pinto
(the “Federal Action”). [Doc. # 1-1.] On March 18, 2022, Pinto removed the action to this Court,
invoking this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. # 1.]
Although the Court has been aware since March 20, 2022 of the existence of Pinto’s state
court claims against Moqaddem, on January 13, 2023, the Court became aware that the Superior
Court recently ruled on a motion to strike or dismiss claims identical to those asserted here, which
Moqaddem has asserted as Cross-Claims in the State Court Action. [See Doc. # 120.]
In general, federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the
jurisdiction given them.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S.
800, 817 (1976). But in “exceptional circumstances,” federal district courts may stay federal
actions where a parallel state court proceeding is pending pursuant to Colorado River Water
Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), “in the interest of wise judicial
administration.” United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194, 1202 (9th Cir.
2021). In light of the parties’ active litigation of the State Court Action, the parties are ORDERED
to show cause why this action should not be stayed pending resolution of the parallel state court
action.
In this circuit, district courts weigh eight factors in determining whether to stay an action
under Colorado River:

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 22-1808-DMG (JEMx)

Title Maha Elregragui Moqaddem v. Albert Gregory Pinto, et al.

Date

January 19, 2023
Page

2 of 2

(1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over any property at stake; (2) the
inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation; (4)
the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law or state
law provides the rule of decision on the merits; (6) whether the state court
proceedings can adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire
to avoid forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings will resolve
all issues before the federal court.
R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978–79 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the first
two factors appear not to apply in this case (since there is no real property at stake in this action
and both the state and federal forums are located in Los Angeles), the parties should focus on the
remaining six factors in their response.
The parties shall file their responses by February 2, 2023. By the same date, Pinto is
further ORDERED to provide this Court with a copy of the order issued by the Superior Court
resolving his motion to strike and dismiss, if any.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT