Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00541/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00541-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 11cv541

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MORENO, individual and on

behalf of a class of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-541-H (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO STAY

vs.

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION,

Defendant.

On July 17, 2011, Defendant RadioShack Corporation (“Defendant”) filed a motion to

stay the proceedings in this case. (Doc. No. ) On July 25, 2011, Plaintiff Mario Moreno

(“Plaintiff”) filed his response in opposition. (Doc. No. 19.) On August 1, 2011, Defendant

filed its reply. (Doc. No. 20.) The Court, pursuant to its discretion under the Local Civil Rule

7.1(d)(1), determines this matter to be appropriate for resolution without oral argument,

submits it on the parties’ papers, and vacates the motion hearing set for August 8, 2011. For

the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay.

///

///

///

Case 3:11-cv-00541-H-BLM Document 22 Filed 08/02/11 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

1

The original complaint in this case was brought by Mark. L. Knutson. (See Doc. No.

1, Ex. 1, Compl.) On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint substituting

Mario Moreno as Plaintiff in this action. (Doc. No. 11.) 

- 2 - 11cv541

Background

On February 15, 2011, Plaintiff1

 initiated this class action in the Superior Court of the

State of California, alleging that RadioShack violated California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card

Act of 1971 by requesting customers’ personal identification information during credit card

transactions. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1, Compl.) On March 18, 2011, Defendant removed the action

to this Court. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) Defendant moves to stay this action pending

the resolution of Sosinov v. RadioShack Corp., No. BC-449675 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed

Nov. 19, 2010). (Doc. No. 16-1 at 5.)

Discussion

I. Legal Standard for a Motion to Stay

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 of such 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

Case 3:11-cv-00541-H-BLM Document 22 Filed 08/02/11 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

- 3 - 11cv541

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 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

Defendant moves to stay this action pending the resolution of Sosinov v. RadioShack

Corp., No. BC-449675, filed on November 19, 2010 in the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Doc.

No. 16-1.) Defendant argues that Moreno and Sosinov actions should not proceed

concurrently, because both actions are litigating the same alleged violations of the

Song-Beverly Act by the same Defendant and involve the same class members. (Doc. No. 16-

1 at 8.) Defendant also argues that staying this case until the Sosinov case is resolved would

limit the parties’ expenses, conserve the Court’s judicial resources, and avoid the possibility

that this action would be rendered moot by a preclusive judgment in the Sosinov matter.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the stay is not appropriate under the applicable legal

standards. (Doc. No. 19 at 3.) Plaintiff argues that because neither court has assumed

jurisdiction over property, this factor weighs against abstention. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff points out

that Defendant removed this action to federal court, and thus cannot claim the inconvenience

of the federal forum. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff also notes that the Sosinov action has not progressed

materially farther than this case, and that the Los Angeles Superior Court has made no

substantive rulings in Sosinov. (Id. at 6.) 

The outcome of the Sosinov matter is still unpredictable at this time, given the early

stages of development of that case. Furthermore, a stay in this federal case is not warranted

where there is no indication of when the state court may resolve the Sosinov case. The Court

concludes that exceptional circumstances do not exist warranting the surrender of federal court

jurisdiction. See Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 15–16. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Case 3:11-cv-00541-H-BLM Document 22 Filed 08/02/11 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

- 4 - 11cv541

RadioShack’s motion for a stay. 

CONCLUSION

Exercising its discretion and considering the competing interests, the Court DENIES

Defendant RadioShack Corporation’s motion to stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 2, 2011

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:11-cv-00541-H-BLM Document 22 Filed 08/02/11 Page 4 of 4