Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 33

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA U-HAUL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipality, Defendant. _____________________________/ On September 3, 2008, the Court heard oral argument in connection with Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions. Having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, the Court ruled from the bench and Ordered as follows: Informed by Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), and M&A Gabaee v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, 419 F.3d 1036 (2005), the Court concluded that the circumstances require application of the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine. In applying the doctrine, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not met their burden to prove either that the ongoing California state proceedings failed to provide an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims, or that the City's actions that Plaintiffs challenge here were animated by bad faith. Accordingly, the Court now STAYS this action under Younger pending resolution of the state court proceedings. Immediately after receiving notice that there has been a judgment or other significant ruling in U-Haul's appeal of the denial of its Petition for Writ of Mandamus or in the City's nuisance action pending in Alameda Superior Court, counsel for U-Haul must electronically file a letter with the Court explaining the current status of both state court proceedings. After
1

No. C 08-2313 WDB ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

United States District Court

12
For the Northern District of California

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 4:08-cv-02313-WDB

Document 33

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 2 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

receiving the letter from U-Haul's counsel, the undersigned will contact counsel for both parties to schedule a telephone conference to discuss how best to proceed. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. Defendants concede that they failed to follow the safe harbor notice provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 3, 2008 WAYNE D. BRAZIL United States Magistrate Judge

2