CCA -Order Staying Case.pdf

7/29/2019 CCA -Order Staying Case.pdf

1/7


2/7

2

violations.

The above-styled cause is one of two actions involving similar

claims which were filed between the Parties. The other case has been

filed in Florida state court. See DE 13, Ex. A. The discussion below

regarding the question of this Courts continued exercise of

jurisdiction over the above-styled cause will be assisted by stating

the background of certain of the aforementioned actions.

The action styled City of Pembroke Pines v. Corrections

Corporation of America, Case No. 12-7337(25) (hereinafter the Florida

action), was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for

Broward County, Florida, on March 14, 2012. It involves substantially

the same Parties and issues as those in the above-styled cause.

This being the case, the Court must undertake an abstention

analysis to determine whether it should continue to exercise

jurisdiction over the above-styled cause. See Ambrosia Coal and

Construction Co., v. Pages Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1330 (11th Cir.

2004) (Colorado River analysis is applicable as a threshold matter

when federal and state proceedings involve substantially the same

parties and substantially the same issues.) Additionally, by the

instant Motion (DE 13), Defendant asks the court to abstain and to

stay this matter pending resolution of the related and parallel state

court proceeding.

Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 2 of 7


3/7

3

B. Colorado River Abstention

The Court notes that, although federal courts are courts of

limited jurisdiction whose jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged,

once said jurisdiction is established there is a virtually unflagging

obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given

them. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. V. United States, 424

U.S. 800, 817 (1976). Generally, as between state and federal

courts, the rule is that the pendency of an action in state court is

no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court

having jurisdiction. Id. (quoting McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S.

268, 282 (1910)). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, such

concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts dictates that

the federal court weigh considerations of [w]ise judicial

administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources

and comprehensive disposition of litigation. Id. (quoting Kerotest

Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)).

In considering whether Colorado River abstention is appropriate,

the Court must weigh six factors that have been catalogued by the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit:

(1) whether one of the courts has assumed jurisdictionover property, (2) the inconvenience of the federalforum, (3) the potential for piecemeal litigation, (4)the order in which the fora obtained jurisdiction, (5)whether state or federal law will be applied, and (6) theadequacy of the state court to protect the partiesrights.

Ambrosia Coal and Construction Co., v. Pages Morales, 368 F.3d



4/7

4

1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). When weighing these factors, the

Court notes that [n]o 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. Colorado River, 424

U.S. at 818-19; see also Moses H. Cone Meml Hospital v. Mercury

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983) (The weight to be given to

any one factor may vary greatly from case to case, depending on the

particular setting of the case.).

Turning to the aforementioned factors, the Court finds that

the first two are inapplicable because there is no property at

issue over which the Court would assume jurisdiction, and no party

has argued that continued litigation in the Southern District of

Florida is inconvenient. When considering the third factor, the

Court finds that the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation weighs

strongly in favor of abstention in the above-styled cause.

Litigating the very same issues in parallel actions invites the

potential for inconsistent rulings and is, in every practical

sense, an inefficient use of scarce judicial resources.

As to the fourth factor, the Court notes that the Supreme

Court clarified that, despite the somewhat misleading phrasing in

Colorado River, this factor should not be measured exclusively by

which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms of how much



5/7

Defendant City of Pembroke Pines voted at a regular1

commission meeting held on March 7, 2012, to direct its counselto file a declaratory judgment action in state court, essentiallyto seek a declaration as to whether the City is obligated toprovide water and sewer service to the Plaintiffs property.Presumably in anticipation of the Citys imminent filing in statecourt, Plaintiffs filed this action in federal court.

5

progress has been made in the . . . actions. Ambrosia Coal, 368

F.3d at 1333 (quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 21)). The above-

styled cause was filed approximately one week before the Florida

action. Solely on this basis, the Florida state court has entered1

a stay in that action. Consequently, both actions remain in an

early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, this fourth factor

does not weigh in favor of or against abstention.

Turning to a consideration of the law to be applied, the Court

notes that the Eleventh Circuit has indicated that this factor is

a question of whether state or federal law applies, and if state

law applies, whether disposition of the case involves a complex

question of state law which would be better left to a state court.

See id. at 1334. Because the Amended Complaint (DE 7) concerns six

state law claims, the Court notes that the application of state law

will predominate in this case, as compared to federal law.

Plaintiffs also posit that the responsibility of Florida

municipalities to provide water/sewer service to properties outside

the boundaries of the municipality, where no contract for service

exists, and the municipality has not held itself out as a public



6/7

6

utility, is a peculiarly local concern. The Court agrees.

Finally, regarding the adequacy of the state courts to protect

the parties rights, the Court notes that [t]his factor will only

weigh in favor or against abstention when one of the fora is

inadequate to protect a partys rights. Id. Where the federal

court is just as capable of protecting the parties rights as the

state forum, this factor is neutral with regard to abstention.

Id. Accordingly, this sixth factor does not weigh in favor of or

against abstention.

Upon consideration of the aforementioned factors, the Court

finds that abstention pursuant to Colorado River is appropriate in

the above-styled cause. In light of the potential for piecemeal

litigation in conjunction with the fact that the case predominantly

involves issues of Florida state law, the Court finds that the

above-styled cause exhibits the exceptional circumstances which

warrant abstention under the guidelines provided by the Supreme

Court and the Eleventh Circuit. Additionally, although it is not

expressly mentioned as one of the factors to be considered, the

Court finds that wise judicial administration dictates against

exercising jurisdiction over an action which is largely duplicative

in nature.

Accordingly, after due consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. In so far as it seeks abstention and a stay of the



7/7

CCA -Order Staying Case.pdf

Documents

Transcript of CCA -Order Staying Case.pdf