(PS) D-Q University Board of Trustees v. Williams ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 D-Q UNIVERSITY. BOARD OF No. 2:21–cv–553–MCE–KJN PS TRUSTEES, et al., 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiffs, 13 (ECF No. 29.) v. 14 MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 In this case, plaintiffs D-Q University Board of Trustees and D-Q U. California (“DQ”) 18 seek a declaration concerning the status of a parcel of land located in Yolo County, California. 19 (See ECF No. 1.) DQ also contends the twelve defendants are trespassing, and requests the court 20 eject them from the land. (See Id.) After the court entered an order setting aside a number of 21 defaults, defendants were ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the pleadings, instructing 22 that any motions to dismiss should be filed in time to join pending motions to dismiss in mid- 23 November. (ECF No. 23) Plaintiff was ordered to file opposition to any motions to dismiss as 24 per Local Rule 230, as well as to “inform the court of the current status of the pending appeal in 25 the state-court action, and the status of plaintiffs' service attempts on the remaining unserved 26 defendants.” (Id.) Defendants did so move to dismiss by the deadline, causing a total of six 27 motions to be set for a November 16, 2021 hearing before the undersigned. (See ECF Nos. 16, 28 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28.) ] On November 1, plaintiffs filed a “first amended status report” with the court concerning 2 || the pending state-court appeal and service on unserved defendants. (ECF No. 29.) Therein, 3 || plaintiffs represented that the pending appeal in the related state-court action had been resolved, 4 || and that the action was to be reinstated in the state trial court. (Id.) 5 Given the disposition of the appeal in the state-court action, plaintiffs are ordered to show 6 || cause why this federal case should not be dismissed without prejudice, or otherwise be stayed, 7 || given the identical nature of the two actions. See Colorado River Water Conservation District v. 8 | United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (“[I]in situations involving the contemporaneous 9 || exercise of concurrent jurisdictions . . ., [there are] principles [that] rest on considerations of wise 10 || judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive 11 || disposition of litigation.”); see also Travelers Indem. Co. v. Madonna, 914 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th 12 || Cir. 1990) (noting that when related cases are pending in state and federal courts, a court 13 || considering Colorado River should examine whether either court has assumed jurisdiction; the 14 | relative convenience of the forums; the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; the order in 15 || which the forums obtained jurisdiction; whether state or federal law controls; whether the state 16 || proceeding is adequate to protect the parties’ rights; and the prevention of forum shopping). As 17 || the hearing on multiple motions to dismiss is fast approaching, plaintiffs shall file a response to 18 || this order by the close of business on November 5, 2021. Plaintiffs may also file a notice of 19 | voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i1). 20 ORDER 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs shall show cause, by November 22 | 5, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice or otherwise stayed pending 23 || resolution of the state court action. 24 | Dated: November 2, 2021 Foci) Aharon 2% KENDALL J. NE D0.553 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28