Courtesy Automotive Group, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 COURTESY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., No. 2:22-cv-00997 WBS DMC dba COURTESY SUBURU OF CHICO, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER v. 15 SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and DOES 16 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Plaintiff Courtesy Automotive Group (“Courtesy”) 21 brought this action in California Superior Court, County of 22 Butte. (Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1).) Courtesy seeks 23 enforcement of its asserted entitlement to attorneys’ fees and 24 costs following a decision in its favor by an Administrative Law 25 Judge (“ALJ”) selected by the California New Motor Vehicle Board 26 in an underlying contract dispute. (See id.) Defendant Subaru 27 of America (“Subaru”) removed to this court based on diversity of 28 citizenship. (Id.) 1 Following the ALJ’s decision, however, Subaru also 2 filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate in California 3 Superior Court, County of Alameda, pursuant to California Code of 4 Civil Procedure § 1094.5, seeking reversal of that decision. 5 (See Mot. at 15 (Docket No. 6); Req. for Jud. Notice, Ex. 1, 6 Prayer (Docket No. 6-3 at 35).)1 That petition is currently 7 pending in the matter of Subaru of America, Inc. v. California 8 New Motor Vehicle Board, No. 22CV010968. (See Mot. at 15; Decl. 9 of Lisa Gibson at ¶¶ 2-3 (Docket No. 6-1).) 10 Because it appears that issues which are the subject of 11 the state court petition bear on Courtesy’s claims currently 12 pending before this court, and that this case would thus be 13 simplified by resolution of that petition, and because Courtesy 14 has not suggested that it will suffer any hardship or economic 15 harm if its claims are not immediately adjudicated, (see Opp. 16 (Docket No. 12)), the court will stay this action until the 17 pending state court petition has been resolved. See Lockyer v. 18 Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (when 19 determining whether to grant a stay pending parallel proceedings, 20 courts consider: (1) “the possible damage which may result from 21 the granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity which a 22 1 Subaru’s request for judicial notice (Docket No. 6-2), 23 to the extent that it requests the court take notice of the existence of its petition pending in state court and of the 24 relief sought therein, is granted. That request in all other respects, and the parties’ other requests for judicial notice, 25 (Docket Nos. 12-1, 13-1), are denied without prejudice as unnecessary to the court’s decision in this Order. 26 Likewise, given the limited scope of this Order, the 27 parties’ requests to file documents under seal, (Docket Nos. 12- 2, 13-3), are also denied without prejudice. 28 . eee RII IERIE IRE IID IE III EI OO ED OE 1 | party may suffer in being required to go forward”; and (3) “the 2 orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 3 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could 4 | be expected to result from a stay”) (citations omitted). 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to 6 Dismiss (Docket No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without 7 prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ alternative 9 | Motion to Stay Action (Docket No. 6) be, and the same hereby is, 10 GRANTED. Within five days of a final decision by the Superior 11 Court on Subaru’s pending petition, the parties shall file a 12 joint status report advising the court of the outcome of such 13 decision, of how they intend to proceed in this action, and of 14 whether any reasons exist for the stay to remain in place, such 15 as the existence of additional planned or pending proceedings in 16 state court. . . 17 | Dated: July 20, 2022 atte A hh be WILLIAM B. SHUBB 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28