NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOCIATION ; and CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOCIATION ,

Plaintiff s - Appellant s ,

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 16939
D.C. No. 3:18

- cv - 03367

- VC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria , District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 2 2 , 2019 ** San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge , and HAWKINS and BADE , Circuit Judges. Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association and Concerned Parents Association (collectively, “Morgan Hill”) appeal a temporary stay order issued by

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

the district court pending evidentiary proceedings in a related case

. Although there is some question about our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we are confident that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the stay. Accordingly,
we affirm. 1

A district court may find it efficient for its own docket and the fairest course
of the litigation to enter a stay of an action pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case. Ley v a v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd. , 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, a district court “is required to pe rform a five

- factor balancing test, considering the interests of the parties, the public, and the court.” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc. , 490 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Keating v. Office of Thrift Superv ision , 45 F.3d 322, 324

– 2 5 (9th Cir. 1995)). We review the stay for abuse of discretion

— balancing its length against the strength of the justification given for it. Yong v. INS , 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000).

T he district court’s on

- the

- record co lloquy reveals consideration of the
relevant factors

. See Blue Cross , 490 F.3d at 724. Here, i ts rationale is adequate to justify imposing the stay. For the most part, this case mirrors the related case, where
the district court is already knee

- deep in evidentiary proceedings to remedy California Department of Education’s (“CDE”) monitoring and enforcement system.

1 The Court grants the motions for judicial notic e (D ocket Nos. 36, 38 , and 42 ).3

W hat is done there will likely provide at least a partial remedy for Morgan Hill here ; thus, judicial ec onomy strongly favors the stay. Cf. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. , 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) (prospect of narrowing the factual and legal issues in the other proceeding may justify a stay). A s for hardships, without a stay CDE

must simultaneously defend dueling actions

— one looking a t the past, the other
focused on the future , both seeking a substantially similar remedy

. Given CDE’s status as a public agency and Morgan Hill’s extensive and likely redundant discovery demands, we find this makes a clear case of hardship. See id. ; see also Little v. City of Seattle , 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). A nd because we find Morgan Hill’s asserted prejudice mitigated by the district co u rt granting it amicus status in the
related case and identifying when Morgan Hill may seek to lift the sta y , we conclude
that the balance of hardships supports the stay. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a stay under
these circumstances.

AFFIRMED

.