Case ID: f-appx_392/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Travelers Casualty Surety Company of America, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, a municipal utility district, Defendant-Appellee. Fru-Con Construction Corporation, a Missouri corporation, Plaintiff, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, A municipal utility district, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 09-17078, 09-17123.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 14, 2010.
    Filed Aug. 19, 2010.
    Eileen Diepenbrock, Esquire, Diepen-brock Law Firm, Sacramento, CA, Charlie C.H. Lee, Robert.M. Moore, Moore & Lee, LLP, McLean, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kevin Murray Fong, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brian L. Becker, Esquire, Bright and Brown, Glendale, CA, John Stewart Pou-los, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the district court’s order issuing a stay pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation District. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion given that a jury verdict had been reached in the parallel state court proceedings, that the claims arise under state law, and that the state court proceedings were adequate to protect the interests of the parties. See Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1413-15 (9th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.