Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

13 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. All claims must be analyzed before a district court can exercise its discretion to dismiss a Federal Declaratory Judgment action in the Eleventh Circuit

    KennedysJune 10, 2022

    Federal courts generally have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise the jurisdiction that Congress has conferred to them. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). But the Declaratory Judgment Act is different.

  2. New York Medical and Life Sciences: Year in Review 2021

    Harris Beach PLLCJanuary 27, 2022

    While the first filed rule did not apply, because both actions were not filed in federal court, based upon the facts presented and application of the Colorado River factors (Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)), the court concluded the exercise of federal jurisdiction should be postponed until after the state court litigation was completed. Therefore, the federal court action was stayed pending outcome of the state case.

  3. Inside ADR: May 2018

    JAMSMay 2, 2018

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. McCall argued that the district court erred by: declining to abstain underColorado River(424 US 800), compelling the parties to arbitrate, and enjoining the state court proceedings in violation of the Anti-Injunction Act.Colorado Riverreflects a “heavy thumb” in favor of exercising federal jurisdiction, a presumption overcome only by exceptional circumstances. Six factors are considered in determining exceptional circumstances.

  4. When Are Federal and State Court Cases “Parallel Proceedings” for Declaratory Judgment Act Purposes?

    Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLCBruce GreenbergAugust 23, 2017

    Citing cases from other Courts of Appeal, the panel amplified that “substantial similarity” d0es not require “[s]trict identity between parties and claims,” but instead means only that ‘the parties involved are closely related and … the resolution of an issue in one will necessarily settle the matter in the other.” Judge Chagares also looked to definitions of parallelism in related abstention contexts, citing as an example the abstention doctrine under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), under which the Third Circuit had found that “cases are parallel when they involve the same parties and claims.”Here, the proceedings were not parallel.

  5. Tennessee Federal District Court Holds That Contractor May Pursue Both Breach of Contract Action in Federal Court and Lien Enforcement Action In State Court – Abstention Not Required

    Pepper Hamilton LLPJane Fox LehmanAugust 4, 2016

    Owner argued before the federal district court that the Contract Action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to what is known as the Colorado River Doctrine. In Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), the Supreme Court explained that considerations of judicial economy and federal-state comity may justify federal court abstention in situations of contemporaneous exercise of jurisdiction by state and federal courts. Federal courts are to grant a stay or dismissal of litigation where the cases are “parallel,” meaning “substantially the same parties” are contemporaneously litigating “substantially the same issues” such that there is a “substantial likelihood that the state litigation will dispose of all claims presented in the federal case.”

  6. Exceptionally Navigating Abstention: Northern District of Illinois Applies the Colorado River Doctrine to Stay Arbitration

    Goldberg SegallaBrandon D. ZellerNovember 18, 2015

    So what was the first insurer to do? File a federal suit in Illinois to compel arbitration under its agreement with the policyholder. In response to the Illinois suit, policyholder, among other things, asked that the Illinois case be stayed pending the resolution of the Wisconsin case.Pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), “a federal court may stay or dismiss a suit . . . when a concurrent state court case is underway, but only under exceptional circumstances and if it would promote wise judicial administration.” Since substantially the same parties were contemporaneously litigating substantially same issues in both Wisconsin and Illinois (including the existence of the agreement), the policyholder argued the Illinois case should be stayed.

  7. October 2015: Bankruptcy & Restructuring Litigation Update

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLPOctober 26, 2015

    Abstention. Judge Krause’s constitutional concerns with equitable mootness began with the “virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them,” Krause Concurrence, at *5 (quoting Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). Believing federal courts to be required to exercise their jurisdiction unless there is an exception, she distinguished equitable mootness from the “narrow and deeply rooted abstention doctrines recognized by the Supreme Court.”

  8. Bad Faith in Louisiana: Insured’s Claim for Bad Faith Not Limited to Statutory Cause of Action

    Goldberg SegallaClayton D. WatermanSeptember 1, 2015

    The Fifth Circuit also vacated and remanded the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the declaratory judgment action based on the abstention doctrine.It noted that the Brillhart standard does not apply when there are both declaratory and coercive claims involved and federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction over coercive claims, citing Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. V. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Since the policyholder’s coercive counterclaims were restored and the declaratory judgment claims had now been brought in state court, the issue required reconsideration by the District Court, including those two factors.

  9. CITIZEN SUIT WATCH: State Enforcement Does Not Bar RCRA Citizen Suit, As Seventh Circuit Narrowly Construes Federal Abstention

    Crowell & Moring LLPKirsten L. NathansonMay 16, 2011

    ns decision may invite district courts to broadly assert jurisdiction over citizen suits by, for example, erring on the side of finding that citizen suits seek to enforce different statutory requirements than those at issue in related governmental enforcement actions. Similarly, courts may readily decline to apply either of the judge-made abstention doctrines by finding some basis why a governmental enforcement action is not parallel to a citizen suit and by simply pointing to the fact that the governmental action is not being litigated before a highly specialized state court.Entities facing government enforcement can proactively respond to Adkins through either managed inclusion of all stakeholders affected by the alleged liabilities and/or properly tailored government enforcement that addresses a more reasonable scope of the liability risk than that pursued in Adkins. Overly narrow enforcement does not always yield the desired result.1 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.2 319 U.S. 315 (1943).3 424 U.S. 800 (1976).4 Three grades of waste are relevant to this case.

  10. District Court Rules Against Abstention of Federal Claims in Parallel Filings Of Reinsurance Declaratory Judgment Actions

    Goldberg SegallaOctober 1, 2010

    In the complaint, it also raised claims under eleven additional contracts between the parties. Clearwater moved to dismiss or stay the federal matter arguing abstention under the well-settled federal precedent and the magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation denying Clearwater’s motion for abstention.In affirming the magistrate’s decision, the district court reviewed the case de novo and conducted a detailed analysis on the appropriate standard to apply in evaluating the abstention issue, based on Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v . United States, 424 US 800 (1976) and Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 US 277 (1995). In acknowledging that it could not show “exceptional circumstances” under Colorado River, Clearwater argued that the more lenient abstention standard in Wilton applied here, and that the magistrate erred in not invoking his discretion under Wilton.