Civil Procedure — abstention

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

CIVIL

Civil Procedure

Abstention

It was improper for a district court to stay a federal discrimination claim, even though a state court action between the same parties, alleging state law claims, was pending on appeal.

“It may be that Huon eventually will face the possibility that his federal suit is barred by claim preclusion, if the dismissal of his state complaint is upheld on appeal. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292-94 (2005); Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909, 916 (7th Cir. 2010); Negrón-Fuentes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 532 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2008); Bass v. Butler, 258 F.3d 176, 178-79 (3d Cir. 2001). But when Huon chose to initiate separate suits in state and federal courts, he accepted the risk that an unfavorable judgment in the case that finished first might preclude his litigation in the other forum. Although at first blush it may seem inefficient to allow both cases to proceed, the Colorado River doctrine focuses on a federal court’s obligation to exercise its jurisdiction, see Adkins, 644 F.3d at 496, with preclusion doctrines operating as a backstop to ensure that the concurrent proceedings do not result in inconsistent judgments. See Stewart v. Western Heritage Ins., 438 F.3d 488, 492 (5th Cir. 2006); Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687, 702 n.13 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Spring City Corp. v. Am. Bldgs. Co., 193 F.3d 165, 172 (3d Cir. 1999); Woodford, 239 F.3d at 525 (quoting Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 230 (1922)). The Colorado River doctrine is not intended to give defendants the upper hand by stalling the federal case to wait for a favorable final judgment in the state proceeding that then can be used to bar the plaintiff’s claims in federal court.”

Vacated and Remanded.

10-3254 Huon v. Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Manning, J., Wood, J.