Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03248/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03248-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIZETTE GREENE, on behalf of

herself and on behalf of others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ROBERT HALF CORPORATION dba RHC,

ROBERT HALF INCORPORATED, and

ROBERT HALF OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-3248 SC

ORDER STAYING CASE

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to

Facilitate Notice and Plaintiffs' Motion to File a Second Amended

Complaint. See Docket Nos. 50, 65. On May 3, 2007, Defendants

filed a Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions. 

See Docket No. 82. In the Supplemental Brief, Defendants ask the

Court either to dismiss or stay the present action pending

resolution of Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., et al.,

Case No. BC321317 ("Laffitte action"), a state court action in Los

Angeles Superior Court involving the same parties and claims. See

id. at 1; Rowley Decl., ¶¶ 3-7 and Exs. A-C. 

Under the Colorado River doctrine, courts may dismiss or stay

a federal action in the interests of "[w]ise judicial

administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial

Case 3:05-cv-03248-SC Document 85 Filed 06/07/07 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

resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation." Colo.

River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817

(1976) (citations omitted). Courts must consider and weigh

several factors in making a decision, including: (1) whether

either court has asserted jurisdiction over a res or property; (2)

the relative convenience of the forums; (3) the avoidance of

piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was

obtained 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 Nakash v.

Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). 

Careful consideration of the aforementioned factors weighs in

favor of staying the present case: a stay would avoid piecemeal

litigation; the Laffitte action was filed first and is in a more

advanced stage; and the state court can adequately protect the

Plaintiffs' rights. In addition, the Laffitte action and this

action are "substantially similar." Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1416. 

For the reasons discussed, the Court hereby STAYS the present

case pending resolution of the Laffitte action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03248-SC Document 85 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 2