R. ABCARIAN; R. Reyes; H. Reyes v. Meldon Edises LEVINE; William Watson Funderburk, Jr.; Jill Banks Barad; Michael F. Fleming; Christina E. Noonan; David H. Wright; Marcie L. James-Kirby Edwards; Joseph A. Brajevich; Eric Garcetti; Gilbert Cedillo; Paul Krekorian; Bob Blumenfield; David E. Ryu; Paul Koretz; Nury Martinez; Felipe Fuentes; Marqueece Harris-Dawson; Curren D. Price; Herb J. Wesson, Jr.; Mike Bonin; Mitchell Englander; Mitch O‘Farrell; Jose Huizar; Joe Buscaino; Michael Nelson Feuer; James Patrick Clark; Twenty Unknown Named Defendants
No. 16-56765
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
JULY 3, 2017
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2017 Pasadena, California
Deborah Dorny, Benjamin F. Chapman, Los Angeles City Attorney‘s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LIPEZ,* BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
As the result of Proposition 26, approved by voters in 2010, the California constitution prohibits local governments from imposing taxes without first submitting them for approval through a popular vote.
A consolidated class action previously filed in California state court also challenges DWP‘s rates and transfers. See Eck v. City of Los Angeles (LASC No. BC577028). The district court granted defendants’ motion to stay this federal litigation under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin defendants from charging rates above DWP‘s costs and from making future transfers to the General Fund, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction staying the state court litigation. We have jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court‘s decision staying the case as a final order under
1. The district court properly stayed the case under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). Given the pending state court litigation addressing the same underlying state constitutional issue, staying the case promotes “(w)ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation” because it provides an opportunity for the state court to rule on an important, and potentially dispositive, issue uniquely within its expertise. Id. at 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236 (alteration in original) (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952)). Exact parallelism between the federal and state actions is not required for a Colorado River stay, and the two cases here are “substantially similar.” Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Clark v. Lacy, 376 F.3d 682, 686 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Parties with ‘nearly identical’ interests are considered ‘substantially the same’ for Colorado River purposes.” (quoting Caminiti & Iatarola, Ltd. v. Behnke Warehousing, Inc., 962 F.2d 698, 700-01 (7th Cir. 1992))).1
2. The district court properly refused to enjoin defendants from charging existing power and water rates and from transferring DWP funds to the City‘s General Fund because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the balance of equities tipped in their favor or that an injunction would serve the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); DISH Network Corp. v. FCC, 653 F.3d 771, 776 (9th Cir. 2011) (a plaintiff “must demonstrate that it meets all four of the elements of the preliminary injunction test established in Winter“).
3. The district court‘s refusal to enter an injunction staying the state court litigation in favor of this case was also proper. Plaintiffs have offered no coherent argument otherwise. See, e.g., Aramark Facility Servs. v. Serv. Emps. Int‘l Union, Local 1877, AFL CIO, 530 F.3d 817, 824 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (arguments not adequately briefed are waived).
AFFIRMED.