James v. San Diego Christian College et al

Filing 11

ORDER Staying Further Proceedings and Denying 3 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 3/3/2015. (knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

TERI JAMES,

9
10
11

vs.

CASE NO. 14cv314 BEN (DHB)
Plaintiff,

ORDER STAYING FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS

SAN DIEGO CHRISTIAN
COLLEGE,

12

Defendant.

13
14

Defendants Motion to Dismiss is now before the Court. The motion to

15 dismiss is denied without prejudice. The action is stayed pending resolution of the
16 parallel state proceedings pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine.
17
18

BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed this discrimination action for damages

19 alleging Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil
20 Rights Act of 1991, § 2000e, et. seq., during the course of her employment. One
21 year earlier, Plaintiff filed a similar action, with similar discrimination claims,
22 against the same Defendant, in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
23 California, Case Number 37-2013-00034751-CU-WT-CTL. The state case is
24 scheduled for trial in June.
25
26

DISCUSSION
To further the purposes of wise judicial administration, a federal court may

27 abstain or stay a federal case in favor of a parallel state proceeding. Colorado River
28 Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). To decide whether
-1-

14cv314

1 a particular case warrants a Colorado River stay or dismissal, “the district court must
2 carefully consider “‘both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination
3 of factors counseling against that exercise.’" R. R. Street & Co. v. Transp. Ins. Co.,
4 656 F.3d 966, 978 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 8180). In
5 considering a stay, a district court looks at eight factors.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[W]e have recognized eight factors for assessing the
appropriateness of a Colorado River stay or dismissal:
(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.
Id. at 978-79 (citations omitted). These factors weigh in favor of a stay.
The first two factors are irrelevant in this case because the dispute does not
involve a specific piece of property, and both the federal and state forums are located
in San Diego, California.
The third factor weighs heavily in favor of a stay. “‘Piecemeal litigation
occurs when different tribunals consider the same issue, thereby duplicating efforts
and possibly reaching different results.’” Id. at 979 (quoting Am. Int’l Underwriters,
(Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.1988)). Staying
the federal discrimination case until conclusion of the state discrimination case will
avoid piecemeal litigation.
The fourth factor, the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction, also
weigh heavily in favor of a stay. The state action was filed one year before the
federal case. The state case has progressed quickly with a trial scheduled in June. In
contrast, this case has not moved beyond the pleadings stage.
The fifth factor weighs slightly against a stay. Plaintiff asserts a Title VII
-2-

14cv314

1 discrimination claim in this forum while asserting a discrimination claim in the state
2 forum under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act. The Defendant may
3 have defenses available under the federal statute that it does not enjoy under state
4 law. But the differences are slight. “The California anti-discrimination statutes in
5 question are patterned after federal statutes and often look to federal law.” Jenkins
6 v. City of Richmond, Case No. C 08-3401 MHP, 2009 WL 35224, *2 (N. D. Cal. Jan.
7 6, 2009) (citations omitted) (considering Colorado River factors); see also Riley v.
8 City of Richmond, Case No. C-13-4752 MMC, 2014 WL 5073804, *4 (N. D. Cal.
9 Oct. 9, 2014) (granting Colorado River stay because discrimination claims under
10 California’s FEHA and federal Title VII are analyzed under the same framework and
11 state court’s findings will have preclusive effect).
12

The sixth factor weighs in favor of a stay because the state court forum is

13 adequate to protect the rights of the parties.
14

The seventh factor is neutral because there is no evidence of forum shopping

15 by either party.
16

The eighth factor weighs in favor of a stay. Related to the fifth factor, the

17 eighth factor considers whether the state action will resolve all of the issues before
18 the federal court. Plaintiff is asserting employment discrimination claims (as well as
19 others) in her state court action. She asserts a substantially similar Title VII claim in
20 this federal case. “California courts have determined that, because FEHA embodies
21 the same anti-discrimination and public policy objectives as Title VII, the test for
22 determining whether there is discrimination under Title VII applies to FEHA claims
23 as well.” Tarin v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 123 F.3d 1259, 1263 & n.2 (citation
24 omitted). Once the California court decides the merits of the state FEHA claim, the
25 merits are not subject to redetermination in this forum. A federal court considering a
26 Title VII discrimination claim is required to give preclusive effect to a state court
27 judgment on a similar state discrimination claim. Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp.,
28 456 U.S. 461, 466-85 (1982). Thus, a decision on the merits of the state
-3-

14cv314

1 discrimination claim in state court will likely resolve the Title VII issue before the
2 this Court.
3

The eight factors together weigh in favor of staying the federal case until the

4 conclusion of the state case. Although this Court may press forward with the
5 process of adjudicating the Title VII claim, the wiser administration of judicial
6 resources counsels in favor of staying1 this case based on the Colorado River
7 doctrine.
8

CONCLUSION

9

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. This case is

10 stayed pending resolution of the parallel state case Teri James v. San Diego
11 Christian College, San Diego County Superior Court case no. 37-2013-0003475112 CU-WT-CTL.
13

Plaintiff is directed to file a notice with this Court at the conclusion of the

14 state case and in the event the current state court trial date is changed by more than
15 30 days.
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 DATED: March 3, 2015
18
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

Rather than a dismissal, “[b]ecause a stay avoids speculative and difficult
27 questions of state preclusion and limitations law, the district court should have granted
a stay. . . after determining that the Colorado River doctrine applies.” Fierle v. Perez,
28 M.D. Ltd., No. 09-16461, 350 Fed. App’x 140, *142 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009) (citation
omitted).
-4-

14cv314