McLemore

MEMORANDUM **

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar the district court from taking jurisdiction. The California Court of Appeal did not make a judgment on the merits, but instead found that the Superior Court had failed to consider whether an agreement existed between the parties and, if so, whether it was enforceable under California law. The matter was remanded to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing. Because the California courts have not conclusively ruled on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, the district court would not have been required to directly review or adjudicate claims “inextricably intertwined” with a final judgment of a state court. See G.C. and K.B. Inv., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.2003).

We instead determine that this case falls within the narrow confines of the Colorado River doctrine, which permits the stay of a federal suit pending the *919 outcome of state proceedings when considerations of “wise judicial administration” so demand. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The eight factors considered under Colorado River are: (1) which…