Daniel v. Santa Rosa Junior College et al

Filing 47

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING COLORADO RIVER DOCTRINE. Show Cause Response due by 1/17/2014. Motion Hearing set for 3/7/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/9/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GEORGE DANIEL,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-02426 JSW

v.
SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING COLORADO RIVER
DOCTRINE

Defendant.
/

14
15

Pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine, a federal court should, under certain

16

circumstances, stay its proceedings in deference to similar proceedings pending in state court.

17

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1976). The

18

Court “may invoke the Colorado River Doctrine sua sponte.” PrivacyWear, Inc. v. QTS &

19

CFTC, LLC, 2008 WL 4414994, *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2008) (citing Atchison, Topeka and

20

Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of the State of California, 795 F.2d 1442, 1446-48 (9th

21

Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 828 F.2d 9 (1987) (raising Colorado River doctrine for

22

the first time on appeal and instructing district court to stay action upon remand).

23

In applying the Colorado River doctrine, district courts may stay or dismiss an action

24

when there is a concurrent state proceeding involving the same matter and the existence of

25

“exceptional circumstances.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S.

26

1, 14-15 (1983). Under Colorado River, the Ninth Circuit requires a “substantial similarity”

27

between the state and federal proceedings, but has noted that “exact parallelism” is not required.

28

Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989).

1

A court weighs several factors to determine whether to stay or dismiss an action

2

pursuant to Colorado River: (1) whether a court has assumed jurisdiction over a res, (2) the

3

inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation, (4) the

4

order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums, (5) whether state or federal

5

law provides the rule of decision on the merits, and (6) whether the state proceeding is adequate

6

to protect the parties’ rights. Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1415 (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818;

7

Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 25-26). “These factors are to be applied in a pragmatic and flexible

8

way, as part of a balancing process rather than as a mechanical checklist.” Nakash, 882 F.2d at

9

1415 (quotations omitted).
In Nakash, individuals and their related corporate entities filed a state suit alleging state

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

claims and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

12

888 F.2d at 1412-13. Later, the individuals filed a federal suit consisting of similar – but not

13

identical – claims. Id. at 1413. The Ninth Circuit held that a stay was appropriate under

14

Colorado River and noted that although the Supreme Court has held that federal courts have a

15

“virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction, “this somewhat overstates the law

16

because in certain circumstances, a federal court may stay its proceedings in deference to

17

pending state proceedings.” Id. at 1415 (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817).

18

The Ninth Circuit held that despite the lack of exact parallelism between the parties and

19

actions, the actions were substantially similar because both involved disputes over the same

20

conduct and an overlap of key parties. Id. at 1416-17. The court cited three relevant factors

21

under Colorado River: (1) piecemeal litigation was likely to result given the state action’s

22

significant progression; (2) the presence of a federal-law issue (the RICO claim), though

23

normally weighing in favor of federal jurisdiction, was less significant given the fact that law

24

created concurrent jurisdiction over the issue; and (3) the state proceeding was adequate to

25

protect the parties’ rights. Id. at 1415-16.

26

Here, Defendants represent that before Plaintiff filed the action in this Court, Plaintiff

27

filed an action in state court regarding the same incident addressed by the complaint in this

28

action against the same defendants. However, it is not clear how far the action in state court has
2

1

progressed, whether proceeding simultaneously with both proceedings would lead to piecemeal

2

litigation, or whether the state court proceeding would be adequate to protect the parties’ rights.

3

Accordingly, the Court Orders the parties to Show Cause (“OSC”) in writing why this action

4

should not be stayed or dismissed under the Colorado River doctrine. Plaintiff shall file a

5

response to this OSC by no later than January 17, 2014. Defendants shall file a response by no

6

later than January 31, 2014. The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on the pending

7

motions to dismiss and to disqualify to March 7, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: January 9, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
GEORGE DANIEL,

Case Number: CV13-02426 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.
8
SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE et al,
9
Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
12 District Court, Northern District of California.
13 That on January 9, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter
14 listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an
inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
15
16
17 George Daniel
c/o Jeff Koors
18 217 Barnett Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: January 9, 2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk