Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05030/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05030-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTOINE FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OPERATION DIGNITY, INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. 07-5030 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY;

STAYING ACTION; DIRECTIONS TO

PARTIES; VACATING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Before the Court is defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay,”

filed December 4, 2007. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a response, which, although

denominated an opposition, includes a request that the Court stay the above-titled action. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in response to the motion,

the Court finds the matter suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing

scheduled for January 11, 2008, and rules as follows:

1. Defendants and plaintiff agree that Foster v. Operation Dignity, Inc., et al., No.

RG06302322, the consolidated state court action filed by plaintiff, raises issues “identical”

to those presented herein. (See Defs.’ Mot. at 5:6; Pl.’s Opp. at 3:2.) Further, as noted,

plaintiff agrees that a stay is warranted, specifically, “until a conclusion has been reached

regarding the complaints in state court.” (See Pl.’s Opp. at 4:7-8.) Under such

Case 3:07-cv-05030-MMC Document 20 Filed 01/04/08 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

circumstances, and given that plaintiff seeks damages herein, the Court hereby GRANTS

defendants’ motion to the extent defendants seek a stay, and, accordingly, hereby STAYS

the instant action pending entry of final judgment in the state court proceedings. See

Kirkbride v. Continental Casualty Co., 933 F. 2d 729, 734 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding

abstention under “Colorado River” doctrine is appropriate “in situations involving the

contemporaneous exercise of concurrent jurisdiction”); see also Gilbertson v. Albright, 381

F. 3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding, where abstention doctrine is properly invoked,

district court may not “dismiss actions where damages are at issue; rather, damages

actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are completed”).

2. The parties are hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than Friday, August 1, 2008, a

Joint Status Report, setting forth therein the status of the consolidated state court

proceeding.

3. The Case Management Conference scheduled for January 11, 2008 is hereby

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05030-MMC Document 20 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2