Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_00-cv-02424/USCOURTS-casd-3_00-cv-02424-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 00-CV-2424-B (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APEX WHOLESALE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRY’S ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No: 00-CV-2424-B(JMA)

ORDER STAYING CASE,

DEFERRING PENDING

MOTIONS AND SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE DATE

In the instant litigation between Plaintiff Apex Wholesale, Inc. (“Apex”) and

Defendant Fry’s Electronics (“Fry’s”), Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or

in the alternative summary judgment on the four state claims (unfair practices, false

advertising, unfair competition and intentional interference with economic advantage under

California state law) and on the federal Lanham Act claim. On July 3, 2007, the Court

remanded the four state law claims back to state court, finding that these claims were only

in federal court on supplemental jurisdiction and that the state law claims were wholly

governed by state law and state policy, making them more suitable for determination in

state court. Regarding the remaining Lanham Act claim, the Court ordered the parties to

provide supplemental briefing and set a hearing for September 5, 2007.

Now before the Court is the consideration of whether a stay or dismissal of the

Case 3:00-cv-02424-B-JMA Document 130 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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 00-CV-2424-B (JMA)

remaining Lanham Act claim is warranted. The Court has carefully considered the parties’

briefings and oral arguments on this issue. It finds that under the circumstances a stay is

warranted in the interest of judicial economy and under the considerations set out in

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). While a

stay is generally only appropriate in exceptional circumstances, id. at 818, in the instant

case, the multitude of parallel issues dominated by state law make the state court the forum

in which the claims may be completely and adequately resolved. 

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the instant case be STAYED pending the

outcome of the four causes of action remanded and presently pending in state court. 

Accordingly, the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative

summary judgment on the Lanham Act claim is DEFERRED until such stay is lifted. The

Court also sets a status conference for January 28, 2008 at 9:00 a.m at which time the

parties will inform the Court as to the progress of the state court action.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: September 5, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. Jan M. Adler

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:00-cv-02424-B-JMA Document 130 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 2