02-1278 Cigna HealthCare of St. Louis, Inc., et al. v. Kaiser, et al.

Listen to this article

“[T]he fact that a parallel case, especially one brought by the opposing party, is pending says nothing about the merits or propriety of the suit in the abstaining court. Logic aside, a stay “permits the federal court to retain jurisdiction in case the state court action does not meet its anticipated end. A stay has the additional advantage of bringing the case back before the same federal judge if a determination is needed as to the preclusive effects of the state judgment or decisions.” Lumen Construction, Inc. v. Brant Construction Co., 780 F.2d 691, 698 (7th Cir. 1985). In light of these considerations, the providers’ counsel was right to concede at the argument of the appeal that the district judge’s order should be reformed from a dismissal to a stay.”

“[T]he only question for us today is whether he will conscientiously and sensibly apply the proper legal standard to the issue of arbitrability. We are not certain that he will; his actions in certifying a class even though many of its members including one of the named plaintiffs were basing their claims on contracts containing arbitration clauses, in allowing discovery on the merits to proceed before ruling on arbitrability, and in delaying as long he has ruling on that question (CIGNA moved the state judge for an order to arbitrate in July 2001, almost a year ago), do make us wonder whether federal arbitration rights may not be a second-order concern for him. But our doubts don’t rise to the level at which we could deem the district judge’s action in abstaining an abuse of discretion.”

Affirmed as modified.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Posner, J.