Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00997-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

COURTESY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., 

dba COURTESY SUBURU OF CHICO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and DOES 

1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00997 WBS DMC

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Courtesy Automotive Group (“Courtesy”) 

brought this action in California Superior Court, County of 

Butte. (Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1).) Courtesy seeks

enforcement of its asserted entitlement to attorneys’ fees and 

costs following a decision in its favor by an Administrative Law 

Judge (“ALJ”) selected by the California New Motor Vehicle Board 

in an underlying contract dispute. (See id.) Defendant Subaru 

of America (“Subaru”) removed to this court based on diversity of 

citizenship. (Id.) 

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 3
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

Following the ALJ’s decision, however, Subaru also

filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate in California 

Superior Court, County of Alameda, pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure § 1094.5, seeking reversal of that decision. 

(See Mot. at 15 (Docket No. 6); Req. for Jud. Notice, Ex. 1, 

Prayer (Docket No. 6-3 at 35).)1 That petition is currently 

pending in the matter of Subaru of America, Inc. v. California 

New Motor Vehicle Board, No. 22CV010968. (See Mot. at 15; Decl. 

of Lisa Gibson at ¶¶ 2-3 (Docket No. 6-1).)

Because it appears that issues which are the subject of 

the state court petition bear on Courtesy’s claims currently 

pending before this court, and that this case would thus be 

simplified by resolution of that petition, and because Courtesy 

has not suggested that it will suffer any hardship or economic 

harm if its claims are not immediately adjudicated, (see Opp. 

(Docket No. 12)), the court will stay this action until the 

pending state court petition has been resolved. See Lockyer v. 

Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (when 

determining whether to grant a stay pending parallel proceedings, 

courts consider: (1) “the possible damage which may result from 

the granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity which a 

1 Subaru’s request for judicial notice (Docket No. 6-2), 

to the extent that it requests the court take notice of the 

existence of its petition pending in state court and of the 

relief sought therein, is granted. That request in all other 

respects, and the parties’ other requests for judicial notice, 

(Docket Nos. 12-1, 13-1), are denied without prejudice as 

unnecessary to the court’s decision in this Order.

Likewise, given the limited scope of this Order, the 

parties’ requests to file documents under seal, (Docket Nos. 12-

2, 13-3), are also denied without prejudice.

.

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 3
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

3

party may suffer in being required to go forward”; and (3) “the 

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could 

be expected to result from a stay”) (citations omitted).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss (Docket No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ alternative 

Motion to Stay Action (Docket No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, 

GRANTED. Within five days of a final decision by the Superior 

Court on Subaru’s pending petition, the parties shall file a 

joint status report advising the court of the outcome of such 

decision, of how they intend to proceed in this action, and of 

whether any reasons exist for the stay to remain in place, such 

as the existence of additional planned or pending proceedings in 

state court.

Dated: July 20, 2022

Case 2:22-cv-00997-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 3