Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00048/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00048-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH De FELICE, ALEXI ZUNIGA, )

JACKIE MALCOMB, AND JAMES )

MAMULA; )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

CHUGACH MAINTENANCE )

SERVICES, INC.; MIKE COWART; )

TOBY COWART; LORI FROST; MEL )

LYNCH; RICK TATE; )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-CV-0048 AWI GSA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

STAY

[Doc. 56]

This is a civil action proceeding on the amended complaint filed April 24, 2006,

alleging wrongful termination, retaliation for employees protesting unsafe or unhealthy

working conditions, fraud and deceit, breach of implied covenant, and breach of oral contract

of employment. Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the entire case. The

United States has joined in this motion.

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 70 Filed 11/05/07 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

This case was originally filed in Kern County Superior Court in April 2005. It has

thus been pending for more than two years. Defendants removed the case to federal court in

January 2006, and then moved to strike and dismiss the complaint. The court granted in part

and denied in part the motion. In April 2006, Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint on

which the case now proceeds. The scheduling conference in this case was rescheduled five

times, after which the court granted Plaintiffs’ former counsel’s motion to withdraw. The

scheduling conference was finally held on April 19, 2007. The motion to stay was filed on

May 29, 2007.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has explained the applicable standard as

follows:

The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings

pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v.

Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.1989); Securities & Exchange Comm'n v.

Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993, 101 S.Ct.

529, 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of

the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are

unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1374. “Nevertheless,

a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... ‘when the interests of

justice seem [ ] to require such action.’ ” Id. at 1375 (quoting United States v. Kordel,

397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, 769 n. 27, 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970)).

The decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel

criminal proceeding should be made “in light of the particular circumstances and

competing interests involved in the case.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902. This means the

decisionmaker should consider “the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment

rights are implicated.” Id. In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider

the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously

with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to

plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings

may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its

cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not

parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and

criminal litigation. Id. at 903.

Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9 Cir. 1995). th

The court has considered the United States’ and Plaintiffs’ request for a stay of this

action, and has carefully weighed the above five factors. Because much of the relevant

material has been filed under seal, the court will not detail its analysis of those factors. 

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 70 Filed 11/05/07 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

However, the court finds that the factors weigh in favor of granting the stay. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay of this case is GRANTED;

2) All proceedings in this case are STAYED pending further order of this court;

3) All dates presently calendared in this case are VACATED;

4) Plaintiffs SHALL FILE a notice with the court on or before five days following

completion of the related criminal proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00048-AWI-GSA Document 70 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 3