Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02954/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02954-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L. ROBERT JELLINEK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-02954-H

(DHB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO STAY 

vs.

ADVANCE PRODUCTS &

SYSTEMS, INC., WILLIAM “TOM”

FORLANDER, and DOES 1-75

Inclusive,

Defendants.

On February 25, 2013, the partiesfiled a joint motion to stay this matter pending

resolution of a related state action. (Doc. No. 21.) For the following reasons, the Court

denies the motion to impose a stay on the matter.1

Background

On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff L. Robert Jellinek (“Plaintiff”) filed an action in

California Superior Court, Jellinek v. Advance Products & Systems, Inc., et al, No.

37-2009-00057431-CU-OE-NC (San Diego Super. Ct. filed July 20, 2009) ("Jellinek

I") against the same defendants as in this action. (Doc. No. 21 (“Mot. for Stay”) at 2.) 

The parties’ motion alternatively asks the Court to reschedule the early neutral 1

evaluation conference set before the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 21.) The Court refers

that portion of the parties’ motion to the magistrate judge for appropriate resolution. 

- 1 - 11cv2954

Case 3:11-cv-02954-H-DHB Document 22 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jellinek I asserts various causes of action relating to Plaintiff’s alleged termination of

employment. (Id.) Plaintiff sought and the court in Jellinek I denied Plaintiff leave to

amend his complaint to add two additional causes of action. (Id.) Plaintiff then filed

this action on October 13, 2011 in state court (Jellinek II), bringing the same factual

allegations and causes of action he sought to add to his complaint in Jellinek I. (Doc.

No. 1-1; Mot. for Stay at 2.) On December 19, 2011, Defendants removed the case to

this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Discussion

I. Legal Standard 

For reasons of “wise judicial administration,” federal courts may stay a federal

action based on “the presence of a concurrent state proceeding.” Moses H. Cone Mem.

Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 15 (1983) (citing Colorado River Water

Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818 (1976)). Exact parallelism

between the claims is not required-for application of the Colorado River doctrine, it is

enough if the two proceedings are “substantially similar.” Nakash v. Marciano, 882

F.2d 1411, 1416-17 (9th Cir. 1989).

A stay in favor of state proceedings is appropriate only under “extraordinary

circumstances.” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716 (1996). A court

must consider and weigh several factors when determining the propriety ofsuch a stay.

These include (1) whether either court has asserted jurisdiction over a res or property;

(2) the relative convenience of the forums; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal

litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction and the progress of

such proceedings; (5) whether state or federal law controls; and (6) whether the state

proceeding is adequate to protect the rights of the parties. See Moses H. Cone, 460

U.S. at 21-22; Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817-19; Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1415. “The

factors relevant to a given case are subjected to a flexible balancing test, in which one

factor may be accorded substantially more weight than another depending on the

circumstances of the case, and ‘with the balance heavily weighted in favor of

- 2 - 11cv2954

Case 3:11-cv-02954-H-DHB Document 22 Filed 02/26/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

exercising jurisdiction.’” Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2002)

(quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 16). Because federal courts have a “virtually

unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction, Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817,

“exceptional circumstances” must exist for a federal court to surrender jurisdiction

under Colorado River. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 15-16.

II. Analysis

The partiesseek an indefinite stay pending resolution of the related state action,

Jellinek I. An indefinite stay should not be granted under normal circumstances. See

Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th

Cir. 2007) (“Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.”). The parties are

required to make a strong showing justifying its need for an indefinite stay. See Yong

v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (“If a stay is especially long or its term

is indefinite, [courts] require a greater showing to justify it.”). The parties argue that

judicial economy and efficiency would be promoted by entering a stay in this action as

the underlying facts and allegations in the two actions are related, and the resolution

of Jellinek I may dictate the outcome of the case before this Court. (Mot. for Stay at

3-4, 6.)

While the parties agree that the resolution of Jellinek I may affect this case, the

parties dispute whether that is necessarily so. (Mot. for Stay at 3.) The parties also

dispute whether the two cases involve distinct theories of liability. (Id. at 2.) It is

therefore unclear whether the outcome ofJellinek I will have a dispositive effect on the

resolution of the action before this Court. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices,

Inc., 12 F.3d 908 913 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he existence of a substantial doubt as to

whether the state proceedings will resolve the federal action precludes the granting of

a stay.”) Additionally, although the parties estimate that Jellinek I will be resolved in

early Fall of this year, they do not indicate their foundation for that estimate. This case

was filed in 2011 and has proceeded slowly. Given that Jellinek I has been pending

since 2009, the Court is not convinced that the matter is likely to be resolved swiftly,

- 3 - 11cv2954

Case 3:11-cv-02954-H-DHB Document 22 Filed 02/26/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or that six months is a reasonable time to further delay proceeding with the matter

before this Court. See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857,

864 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A stay should not be granted unless it appears likely the other

proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time.”). Moreover, there is no

guarantee that whichever party does not prevail in Jellinek I would not appeal any final

judgment in state court, creating additional delays. 

The Court concludes that exceptional circumstances do not exist for a stay. See

Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 15-16. Accordingly, the Court denies the parties’ motion

for a stay. The Court notes that the parties could file a joint motion to dismiss the case

without prejudice, with a tolling agreement, or remand, if appropriate, in lieu of a stay. 

Conclusion

Exercising its discretion and considering the competing interests, the Court

denies the parties’ motion to stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2013

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 4 - 11cv2954

Case 3:11-cv-02954-H-DHB Document 22 Filed 02/26/13 Page 4 of 4