Hmmm...sounds like you are trying to recreate the SETI target list from scratch. (Tarter and Turnbull)
From what I remember...
Star must be of the right spectral type/class.
They set an upper limit of F5 (hot) and dropped down to about M0 (small and colder). If memory serves (and it might not, the HIP catalogue gives something on the order of about 5000 stars (out of 35,000 - 50,000) within 50 parsecs that fit this criteria. Limits stars to F5-F9, G0-G9, K0-K9, M0-M1. Note that M0-M1 type stars are very faint, checking in with 1-2% of the luminosity of our Sun. Earthlike planets orbiting such stars would probably be tidally locked.
A, B, O, and T stars need not apply.
Spectral class of V or *maybe* VI (subdwarf, metallicity problems) or IV (starting to evolve off the main sequence).
Metallicity of star at least somewhat comparable to the sun (but this is a dang hard one to get right; I repeatedly ran across wildly conflicting claims (metallicity differences in excess of 100% with our sun = 100% for the same star).
Star has to be at least 3 billion years old (another tough one).
Star cannot be significantly variable (I think Tarter/Turnbull allowed for a 3% range here).
Star can be in a multiple star system...but the orbital parameters are *VERY* critical. Binary must be either very close or very widely separated. Also...most binary systems have a high degree of orbital eccentricity, which is not good for stable planetary orbits. I was a bit suspicious of the Tarter/Turnbull method for declaring a multiple star system suitable, especially those with a derth of longterm observations.
Galactic Orbit. You don't want a star with a galactic orbit that takes it ... a great deal closer... to the galactic core than we are. You get into very nasty radiation problems. Galaxy has a sort of 'habitable band' several thousand parsecs across. Now...given than galactic orbits tend to be on the order of hundreds of millions of years and there are a lot of gaps in the radiation junk in the core region (very very roughly, center third of galaxy) a earthlike planet orbiting a star with such a galactic orbit *could* get lucky a few times...but...
Claim is a 'Jupiter' (large gas giant in the outer reaches of a solar system) is either useful or essential for getting rid of the bulk of the comets and debrie that might otherwise hail down on an earthlike planet further in. If said 'Jupiter' is too big or orbits too close in, then its gravity disrupts the orbital stability of possible earths (and several of the recently discovered extra solar planets would do just exactly that.
Claim also is that a nice big moon would also be either real handy or essential to strip off 'excess atmosphere'. I'm not so sure about this.
Think you get into mass/oribtal problems if this 'earth' is actually a gas giant 'moon'.
From what I remember, HABCAT 1 gives something on the order of 17,000 possibles within a couple hundred parsecs; my own study seem to remember around 2000 within 50 parsecs.
HABCAT 2 from the TYCHO catalog gives a couple hundred thousand possibles, but this data is a *LOT* less refined; distances not known at all, spectral types, ages, ect all estimates and guesswork. (Tried using secondary sources to look into this abit, very tiring).