In affirming the dismissal of the state case, our Supreme Court noted that "there is no suggestion in the record that the federal district court did not have jurisdiction to resolve the entire conflict between the parties, and the plaintiffs have not asserted that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the issues on the merits." Id. In Roberts, however, when the district court dismissed the plaintiff's state suit, the plaintiff's federal suit had already proceeded to judgment and was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
In the instant action, unlike Roberts, when the district court dismissed Zaleha's state action, the federal court had not yet determined whether to exercise its jurisdiction over Zaleha's state law claims.
Two years later, and one day before the statute of limitation expired, Zaleha filed two law suitsone in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho (district court), and one in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (federal court). In February 1996, the district court held a hearing on all pending motions. 12(b)(8) of whether to proceed with an action where a similar case is pending in a separate court is discretionary. Zaleha's appeal focuses on the third tierwhether the district court exercised reason in reaching its decision.
Hall, Farley, Oberrecht & Blanton, Boise, for defendent-respondent, Slette. Harper, Twin Falls, for defendant-respondent, Robertson. Cantrill, Skinner, Sullivan & King, Boise, for all other defendants-respondents. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the dismissal orders, and we remand this case to the district court for an order staying the proceedings. Bernard Zaleha was employed as an attorney by the law firm of Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker Chtd. In October 1992, RRT terminated Zaleha's employment. Zaleha moved to stay the proceeding until the federal court determined whether it would entertain the state law claims. Zaleha concedes that the first two discretionary tiers were satisfied.
Based on these facts and the record before us, we hold that the district court's decision dismissing Zaleha's state action on the basis that there was a parallel action pending in federal court was error.
Therefore, we vacate the orders dismissing the state action and remand to the district court to enter an order granting Zaleha's motion to stay the proceedings.
The district court indicated that time and expense were its reasons for dismissing the action.
The district court, however, failed to properly analyze the eventual consequences to Zaleha of dismissing the state action.
Add to that ABZORB® midfoot cushioning, a seamless Phantom Liner and an odor-resistant treatment and you've got a shoe that can take you from 9 to 5 to whenever.
When you achieve Silver Level status in My NB, Developed for all-day comfort, the New Balance 928 women’s walking shoe offers industry-leading motion control and superior stability thanks to our ROLLBAR® and Walking Strike Path technologies.
The Lifestyle Pavilion is between the Market Area and the Isuzu D-Max Sheep Dog Trials.