Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07459/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07459-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM M. ABEND and MARCIA F.

ABEND,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, a California municipal

corporation; OFFICE OF THE CITY

ADMINISTRATOR, for the City of Oakland;

DEBORAH EDGERLY, City Administrator

for the City of Oakland; BARBARA KILLEY,

an appointed hearing examiner for the Office

of the City Administrator; ARTHUR

SANCHEZ, an individual; and DOES 1

through 50 inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07459 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities

not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

Case 3:06-cv-07459-JSW Document 25 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

The parties shall have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is the status of the City of Oakland’s state nuisance action? 

2. What factors under the Colorado River doctrine favor the Court’s exercise of

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of administrative mandamus and

complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983? 

3. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he Colorado River test . . . does not apply where the

Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, is involved.” Chamberlain v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 931 F.2d 1361, 1366 (9th Cir. 1991) (overruled in unrelated part by

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289-90 (1995)). However, Colorado River

Water Conservation District v. United States involved a claim for declaratory relief. 

424 U.S. 800, 805 (1976). The Ninth Circuit noted this fact, but also noted that the

federal court’s power over the government’s claim to water rights in Colorado River

was independent of the DJA and thus did not arise pursuant to the DJA. Transamerica

Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Digregorio, 811 F.2d 1249, 1254 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In contrast, in Transamerica, a district court that dismissed a declaratory action in light

of a state court action had jurisdiction solely pursuant to the DJA. Id. at 1253. Because

of this fact, the Ninth Circuit held that abstention pursuant to the DJA, rather than the

Colorado River doctrine, was appropriate. Id. at 1255.

a. In light of footnote 4 in Transamerica, why is abstention pursuant to the DJA

appropriate?

b. Is there any Ninth Circuit authority applying “Declaratory Judgment Act

abstention” to a claim that presents a federal question?

4. Abstention under the Younger doctrine is appropriate if: “(1) there are ongoing state

judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3)

there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions.” 

Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Wash. County, 180 F.3d 1017, 1020 (9th Cir. 1999). 

How is the first requirement satisfied in the present case? Cf. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 598 (1975) (barring a direct federal challenge to a parallel state court’s

application of state nuisance laws).

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07459-JSW Document 25 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2