Jones et al v. County of Tulare, California et al

Filing 30

ORDER STAYING CASE, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/6/2019. The Court further ORDERS that by no later than the earlier of September 6, 2019, or five days following the issuance of the State Court Appeal Action ruling, the parties SHALL file a joint status report (1) apprising the Court of the status of the State Court Appeal Action, and (2) proposing pretrial conference and trial dates for the Courts consideration, if appropriate.(Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MIKAL JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

Case No. 1:17-cv-01260-SKO

v.
ORDER STAYING CASE

12
13

COUNTY OF TULARE, CALIFORNIA, et
al.,

14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17
INTRODUCTION

18
19

On March 6, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment,

20 or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment” (the “Motion”). (Doc. 16.) Amy Myers, Esq.
21 appeared on behalf of Defendants, and William Romaine, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.
22 For the following reasons, and as set forth on the record at the hearing, the Court STAYS the case
23 pending resolution of the case Dilday et al. v. Jones et al., Case No. F077682, currently on appeal
24 before the California Fifth District Court of Appeal (the “State Court Appeal Action”).
LEGAL STANDARD

25
26

“[A] federal court may stay its proceedings in deference to pending state proceedings.”

27 Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1989). In doing so, the court considers the
28 following factors:

1

(1) whether either court has assumed jurisdiction over a res;

2

(2) the relative convenience of the forums;

3

(3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation;

4

(4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction;

5

(5) whether state or federal law controls; and

6

(6) whether the state proceeding is adequate to protect the parties' rights.

7

Id.

“Piecemeal litigation occurs when different tribunals consider the same issue, thereby

8 duplicating efforts and possibly reaching different results.” R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co.,
9 656 F.3d 966, 979 (9th Cir. 2011). Courts also consider the degree to which the state and federal
10 actions are “‘substantially similar.’” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Madonna, 914 F.2d 1364, 1368, 1372
11 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1416 (finding that “[i]t is enough if the two
12 proceedings [be] ‘substantially similar’” and that “exact parallelism . . . is not required”)).
13

ANALYSIS

14

Here, the Court finds the factors set forth above support a stay of this case.

15

At the hearing, the Court noted that the issues in this case are “substantially similar” to the

16 issues in the State Court Appeal Action and informed the parties that the Court was inclined to stay
17 the case pending the resolution of the State Court Appeal Action. Both parties confirmed on the
18 record that they had no objection to staying the case to allow for a decision in the State Court
19 Appeal Action. Given the “desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation” and controlling issues of
20 state law at issue in this case, the Court finds a stay of this case pending resolution of the State
21 Court Appeal Action is appropriate.
22
23

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court STAYS this case pending the resolution of the State Court Appeal

24 Action. In view of the stay, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on Defendants’ Motion until after
25 resolution of the State Court Appeal Action and VACATES all remaining hearings and deadlines
26 including the pretrial conference and trial dates.
27
28
2

1

The Court further ORDERS that by no later than the earlier of September 6, 2019, or five

2 days following the issuance of the State Court Appeal Action ruling, the parties SHALL file a joint
3 status report (1) apprising the Court of the status of the State Court Appeal Action, and (2)
4 proposing pretrial conference and trial dates for the Court’s consideration, if appropriate.
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated:
8

March 6, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.