Opinion
CASE NO: 03-4198-JAR
February 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the court on defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings in federal court pending the resolution of a parallel case pending in Nemaha County. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff filed a Response opposing Defendant's motion (Doc. 20) and Defendant filed his Reply (Doc. 22). On February 11, 2004, Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius conducted a telephone status conference with the parties to discuss the request for a stay.
Relevant Background Facts
Plaintiff Diana Lyn Clark alleges that defendant Dr. A.E. Vitt, a dentist, failed to treat her oral infection. On September 8, 2003, Plaintiff filed an action for medical malpractice against Defendant in the District Court of Nemaha County, Kansas. Defendant was not served with process in the state action. On November 4, 2003, Plaintiff filed the instant case in the federal court. (Doc. 1). Defendant was served with process and filed his answer, including a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for $757.37 in unpaid fees, on December 1, 2003. (Doc. 3). On January 8, 2004, Defendant filed a voluntary answer and counterclaim in the state case. The complaint and answer in the federal case are virtually identical to the petition and answer in the state case. On January 12, 2004, Magistrate Judge Sebelius conducted a scheduling conference and issued a Scheduling Order. (Doc. 5). Discovery is set to conclude on June 15, 2004 and the trial is set for May 16, 2005. The Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss her case in the state court. A hearing on Plaintiff's motion was held before Nemaha County District Judge Patton on February 9, 2004. The state court is awaiting this court's decision on the motion to stay to rule on the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the state case without prejudice. No scheduling order has been entered in the state case so far.
The complaint in the federal case sets forth the bases for federal jurisdiction.
Discussion
In its Memorandum in Support of its motion to stay, Defendant argues that, in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, this court should stay the case and allow the parties to proceed with the "previously filed" state case. (Doc. 10). Staying the federal case, argues the Defendant, would prevent unnecessary duplication of litigation. In her Response, Plaintiff argues that the case was only filed in the state court because she was unaware that Defendant has moved from Kansas to Nebraska. Once the Plaintiff discovered that fact, she promptly filed the case in federal court. Plaintiff also points out that, unlike the state court, this court has entered an order scheduling discovery and trial, and some discovery has already taken place.
The parties appear at odds over the question of whether depositions of the Plaintiff, Diana Clark, and Ralph Clark were taken in the state or federal case. Four entries on the docket sheet in the federal case indicate that the depositions were taken in the federal case (Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 11, and 12). However, during the conference the parties informed the court that the transcripts were captioned with the state court caption. Plaintiff stated that she understood the deposition to be taken for the purposes of the federal litigation. Plaintiff's interpretation appears reasonable in light of the Notices and Amended Notices filed in the federal case.
"The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the Court's inherent power to `control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.'" The question of whether to grant a stay is within the district court's discretion. However, the Tenth Circuit has cautioned that "the right to proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances." "The [applicant] for a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one [sic] else."
D.F. Freeman Contractors, Inc. V. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4638, *4 (D. Kan. March 24, 2003) [ quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)].
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Chilean Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983)[citation omitted].
Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
The Supreme Court in Colorado River Conservation Dist. v. United States stated that, "as between state and federal courts, the rule is that `the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction . . .'" However, in exceptional circumstances, the considerations of "wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation," may permit litigation to proceed solely in state court. The Supreme Court announced that, in resolving the propriety of retaining jurisdiction alongside the state court, the federal court may consider such factors as (1) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (2) the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation; and (3) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained. "No one factor is necessarily determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counseling against that exercise is required."
424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976), quoting McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 282 (1910).
Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817-18 (citations omitted).
Id. at 81 8.
Id. at 818-19.
In this case, jurisdiction in federal court is proper because there is diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest. The Defendant has not presented a "clear case of hardship or inequity" that would justify the requested stay or would override the strong presumption in favor of exercising federal jurisdiction. The parties have offered the court no evidence suggesting that the federal forum is inconvenient.
Although the state case was filed first, the issues were first joined in federal court because the defendant filed his answer in federal court on December 1, 2003, approximately one month and one week before he voluntarily filed an answer in the state court. A scheduling order has been entered in the federal case and some discovery has already been conducted. Depositions of the Plaintiff and Ralph Clark have been noticed in federal court and taken on January 23, 2004, and the parties have exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Plaintiff has moved to dismiss her state court claim. Because there is a good likelihood that the state court claim will be dismissed, allowing the case to proceed in federal court will not result in piecemeal or parallel litigation. Based on our review of the procedural posture of both cases, the stay in the federal case would be unwarranted under United States Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent.
Plaintiff opposes a stay in this case and wishes to proceed with the case in federal court. It is the plaintiff's right to choose her forum. Pursuant to this court's scheduling order, discovery schedule and trial have been set and some discovery initiated. As noted above, defendant has not presented such a clear case for his requested stay as would permit this court to override the presumption in favor of exercising its jurisdiction. Stay of federal case pending the resolution of a state case is the exception, not the rule, and it should not be granted absent exceptional circumstances. None are present here. Therefore, defendant's motion for stay should be denied.
Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19, 40 (1909) ("That the case may be one of local interest only is entirely immaterial, so long as the parties are citizens of different States or a question is involved which by law brings the case within the jurisdiction of a Federal court. The right of a party plaintiff to choose a Federal court where there is a choice cannot be properly denied.").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 9) is denied. The parties shall proceed in accordance with the Scheduling Order entered in this case on January 12, 2004. at Topeka, Kansas.