of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.” Here, resolution of the issue of whether or not Travelers owes Plaintiff a defense of a cross-complaint filed in a pending state court action “would alter the direction of the current proceedings...."Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, 634 F.Supp.2d at 1092-93 (staying proceedings pending interlocutory appeal of order denying motion to dismiss Clean Air Act claim). Since three of Plaintiffs four claims against Travelers are based upon the duty to defend, “[i]t would be a waste of judicial and party resources to proceed with [these] claims while the appeal is pending.” Id.; see also Watson v. Yolo Co. Flood Control and Water Conservation District, No. 2:06-cv-1549 FCD DAD, 2007 WL 4107539, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 16, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff counters that “a stay will cause
holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal holding that in the interest of judicial economy we exercise our discretionary power to suspend the rules pertaining to interlocutory appeals and address the remainder of the defendants appeal holding stay of proceedings pending interlocutory appeal promotes economy of time and effort both for the court and the parties holding that such a stay is appropriate where in the absence of a stay the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective holding that filing of appeal to federal circuit divests this court of jurisdiction to consider motion to stay court order pending appeal