The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, STAY THIS CASE [Docket No. 18]
This case is one of six cases against Americredit currently pending in the state and federal courts of California. In order of filing, the cases are as follows:
1. Arguelles-Romero v. Americredit, Case Number BC410509, which is currently pending before the Los Angeles Superior Court;
2. Smith v. Americredit, Case Number 09cv1076, in which this Court granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. That decision is currently on appeal at the Ninth Circuit;
3. Bankston v. Americredit, Case Number 09cv4892, which is currently pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Defendant's motion for summary judgment re: standing and motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff's motion for class certification are currently pending before the court;
4. Cardenas v. Americredit, Case Number 09cv4978, which is also pending in the Northern District of California;
5. Wright v. Americredit, Case Number 10cv0922, which is currently pending before this Court; and
6. Aho, the present case.
Michael Lindsey and John Hanson represent the plaintiffs in Smith and Aho, and Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron, Ogilvie & Brewer represent the plaintiffs in the other cases. Defendant is represented in all of the cases by Peter Hecker of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.
The present case comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, stay this case on the ground it is duplicative of Bankston. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant has filed a reply. For the reasons set out below, the Court denies the motion.
"The principles of comity allow a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action where a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district." Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000). These principles are intended "'to avoid duplicative litigation,' and to promote judicial efficiency." Id. (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)).
Defendant asserts that this case involves the same parties and issues as Bankston, therefore comity warrants a dismissal or stay of this case. There is no dispute that Defendant is involved in each case. However, there is a dispute about whether the plaintiffs in each case are ...