Walker v. MB Financial Bank, N.A.

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING 11 MB FINANCIAL'S MOTION TO STAY THIS ACTION AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE. This action is STAYED until the Illinois Action is resolved in its entirety and the Illinois court enters judgment. Once the Illinois Court enters judgment, the parties shall file a joint status update about lifting the stay of this action. In addition, the court SETS a status conference for March 27, 2014. The parties may appear at it by telephone through Courtcall. The parties shall file a joint status update regarding the Illinois Action no later than March 20, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/15/2014.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
KENDRA NICOLE WALKER,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 13-03601 LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MB
FINANCIAL’S MOTION TO STAY
THIS ACTION AND SETTING
STATUS CONFERENCE

v.
13
MB FINANCIAL BANK, N.A.,
14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

[Re: ECF No. 11]

16

INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff Kendra Nicole Walker has sued defendant MB Financial Bank, N.A. in federal court.

18

Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 Pursuant to the court’s diversity jurisdiction, she brings four state law

19

claims that relate to MB Financial’s handling of her trust. See generally First Amended Complaint,

20

ECF No. 5. Pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800

21

(1976), MB Financial asks the court to stay the action until an earlier-filed, pending action in Illinois

22

state court is resolved. Motion, ECF No. 11. Ms. Walker does not oppose a stay, but she disagrees

23

with MB Financial over its length. See Opposition, ECF No. 27. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

24

1(b), the court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument and VACATES the

25

January 16, 2013 hearing. Upon consideration of the papers submitted and the applicable legal

26

authority, the court GRANTS MB Financial’s motion and STAYS this action until the Illinois

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

1

Action is resolved in its entirety and the Illinois court enters judgment.

2
3

STATEMENT
There are two actions relevant here, both of which involve the administration of the Kendra

4

Nicole Walker Trust Dated March 26, 2007 (the “Trust”). Ms. Walker and MB Financial are co-

5

trustees of the Trust, and Ms. Walker is the sole beneficiary of it. In the first action (the “Illinois

6

Action”), MB Financial, as Co-Trustee of the Trust, filed a petition in Illinois state court asking for

7

declaratory relief against Ms. Walker, in her individual capacity, as well as Grantor, Co-Trustee, and

8

Beneficiary of the Trust. See MB Financial Bank, N.A. v. Kendra Nicole Walker, No. C13-CH-

9

15828 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ilinois, Chancery Division June 28, 2013); see also Strouse

Walker sued MB Financial for a variety of Illinois state law claims based on MB Financial’s

12
For the Northern District of California

Declaration, Ex. A (“Petition”), ECF No. 12-1. In the second action (the “Federal Action”), Ms.

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

administration of the Trust. See First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5. The following factual

13

allegations are taken from the MB Financial’s Petition in the State Action and Ms. Walker’s First

14

Amended Complaint in the Federal Action.

15

According to MB Financial, in early 2013, Ms. Walker began making financial demands that

16

were out of character, including the following: seeking $250,000 to pay a non-refundable retainer

17

fee to a California attorney for one year of services; texting a vice president of MB Financial on his

18

personal cell phone to demand $700,000 in distributions from the Trust without giving any

19

explanation of what the money was for, refusing to have the money deposited into a bank of her

20

choice, but rather paid to her directly; requesting $800,000 for a down payment on a $4 million

21

Beverly Hills home without providing any details about the purchase. Petition ¶¶ 17, 18, 20, 22. In

22

addition, MB Financial alleges in the Petition that daily $1,000 withdrawals were made using Ms.

23

Walker's ATM card, although she denies any knowledge of these withdrawals. Id. ¶ 21. Moreover,

24

during that same time period, Ms. Walker demanded that she assume responsibility for making her

25

rent and medical bill payments, but ultimately failed to pay them. Id. ¶ 19. She later agreed to allow

26

MB Financial to resume making these payments when MB Financial brought past-due notices to Ms.

27

Walker's attention. Id. MB Financial also alleges that it was informed by one of Ms. Walker's

28

physicians that she was making poor decisions that “are jeopardizing her health and will shorten her

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

2

1
2

life,” and that she should be placed into a health care facility. Id. ¶ 24.
On June 20, 2013, MB Financial received an email copy of a document purporting to amend the

3

Trust to remove it as Co-Trustee and to transfer funds to Charles Schwab. Id. ¶¶ 29-30 & Ex. F.

4

MB Financial alleges that the document was improperly notarized and did not comply with the terms

5

of the Trust for removal of a Co-Trustee. Id. ¶¶ 31-34.

6

On June 28, 2013, MB Financial received a copy of another document purporting to revoke the

7

Trust in its entirety and transferring the marketable assets to Charles Schwab for the benefit of Ms.

8

Walker. Id. ¶ 37.

9

That same day, as a result of Ms. Walker’s allegedly out-of-character financial demands and the

court to determine whether it could properly make the distributions that Ms. Walker has requested

12
For the Northern District of California

purported Trust amendments, MB Financial initiated the State Action by filing its Petition asking the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

and whether the purported amendments to the Trust are valid. See generally id.

13

On August 2, 2013, over a month after the filing of the Illinois Action, Ms. Walker initiated the

14

instant Federal Action pursuant to the federal diversity jurisdiction. Complaint, ECF No. 1. In her

15

First Amended Complaint, she alleges four claims under Illinois law: conversion, intentional

16

infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. First Amended

17

Complaint, ECF No. 5. Her claims all stem from her contention that MB Financial is interfering

18

with her right to control and access the assets of the Trust and that the documents removing MB

19

Financial as Trustee are valid. See generally id.

20

On September 23, 2013, in the Federal Action, MB Financial filed, pursuant to the Colorado

21

River doctrine, a motion to stay this action until the Illinois Action is resolved. Motion, ECF No.

22

11; Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Ms. Walker

23

does not oppose a stay, but she disagrees with MB Financial over its length. See Opposition, ECF

24

No. 27. In the Illinois Action, Ms. Walker filed a motion for summary judgment, which currently is

25

pending. See Reply, Ex. A, ECF No. 34 at 6-16. She argues that the Federal Action should be

26

stayed only until the Illinois court rules on her pending summary judgment motion. See Opposition,

27

ECF No. 27.

28

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

3

ANALYSIS

1
2
3

I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Colorado River doctrine, a federal court may abstain from exercising its jurisdiction in

4

favor of parallel state proceedings where doing so would serve the interests of “[w]ise judicial

5

administration, giving regard to the conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive

6

disposition of litigation.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800,

7

818 (1976); Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 15 (1983). “Exact

8

parallelism” between the state and federal actions is not required; it is enough if the two actions are

9

“substantially similar.” Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989). Nonetheless, the

virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them.’”

12
For the Northern District of California

Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “the Colorado River doctrine is a narrow exception to ‘the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 867 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817).

13

Accordingly, a stay of proceedings pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine is appropriate only

14

where “exceptional circumstances” are present. Id.

15

Colorado River and subsequent Ninth Circuit opinions have identified eight non-exhaustive

16

factors to be considered on a motion for Colorado River stay or dismissal: (1) whether the state court

17

first assumed jurisdiction over property; (2) inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desirability

18

of avoiding piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent

19

forums; (5) whether federal law or state law provides the rule of decision on the merits; (6) whether

20

the state court proceedings are inadequate to protect the federal litigant’s rights; (7) whether

21

exercising jurisdiction would promote forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings

22

will resolve all issues before the federal court. See id. at 870; R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co.,

23

656 F.3d 966, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2011). These factors should be weighed in a “pragmatic, flexible

24

manner with a view to the realities of the case at hand” and “with the balance heavily weighted in

25

favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.” Moses, 460 U.S. at 16, 21. Factors that are irrelevant to the

26

particular inquiry are disregarded. See Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1415 n.6.

27
28

“[D]istrict courts must stay, rather than dismiss, an action when they determine that they should
defer to the state court proceedings under Colorado River.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Sun-Diamond

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

4

1

Growers of CA, 912 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 1990). This is to “ensure [ ] that the federal forum

2

will remain open if for some unexpected reason the state forum does turn out to be inadequate,”

3

“conserve court resources,” and avoid the risk of “mak[ing] premature and speculative legal findings

4

about the preclusive effect of various possible state judgments in choosing between a stay and a

5

dismissal.” Attwood v. Mendocino Coast Dist. Hosp., 886 F.2d 241, 243, 245 (9th Cir. 1989)

6

(quotation omitted).

7

II. THE COURT WILL STAY THE FEDERAL ACTION UNTIL THE ILLINOIS ACTION

8

IS RESOLVED

9

Because the parties disagree about how long the Federal Action should be stayed for (i.e., only

Illinois Action is completely resolved, as MB Financial wants), the court addresses each of the

12
For the Northern District of California

until the Illinois court rules on her pending summary judgment, as Ms. Walker wants; or until the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

factors bearing upon a Colorado River stay.

13

Neither party addresses the first factor—whether the state court first assumed jurisdiction over

14

property. See generally Motion, ECF No. 11; Opposition, ECF No. 36; Reply, ECF No. 34. Even

15

so, both actions involve the parties’ contractual and fiduciaries duties and obligations, not property

16

per se. The court finds this factor to be irrelevant to the inquiry.

17

The second factor—inconvenience of the federal forum—is neutral. Ms. Walker argues that

18

California is an inconvenient forum because the Trust was formed in Illinois and MB Financial is a

19

citizen of Illinois, and therefore there will be “a large number” witnesses and evidence in that state.

20

MB Financial, however, fails to specify any of these witnesses or provide the court with an idea

21

about how much evidence is to be found in Illinois. On the other hand, Ms. Walker resides in

22

California. On balance, the court does not believe that California is a particularly inconvenient

23

forum.

24

The third factor—the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation—favors staying the Federal

25

Action. “Piecemeal litigation occurs when different tribunals consider the same issue, thereby

26

duplicating efforts and possibly reaching different results.” R.R. St. & Co. Inc., 656 F.3d at 979

27

(quotation omitted). Although the two actions involve different claims, all of those claims involve

28

the administration of the Trust. Discovery taken in one action almost certainly will be relevant to

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

5

1

the other one. Ms. Walker’s fear that she will have to re-take the same discovery if the Federal

2

Action is stayed is unwarranted because they parties could agree to use discovery for both actions.

3

Moreover, Ms. Walker acknowledges that, through her summary judgment motion, she has already

4

asked the Illinois court to decide whether she properly revoked the Trust, and she admits the court’s

5

decision will have “some effect on” the Federal Action. Opposition, ECF No. 5. But this court will

6

have to make the same determination to decide her claims here. See generally First Amended

7

Complaint, ECF No. 5. This is piecemeal litigation.

8
9

The fourth factor—the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums—also
favors staying the Federal Action. While MB Financial filed the Illinois Action about a month

explained that “it is important not only to determine whether the state or the federal complaint was

12
For the Northern District of California

before Ms. Walker filed the Federal Action, this does not end the inquiry. The Ninth Circuit has

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

filed first, but also to assess how much progress has been made in the two actions.” Am. Int’l

13

Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1257 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation

14

omitted). And here, the Illinois Action is farther along: in the Illinois Action there are pending

15

summary judgment proceedings, but in the Federal Action, nothing has occurred except the filing of

16

the instant motion to stay; the court has not even had a case management conference.

17

The fifth factor—whether federal law or state law provides the rule of decision on the

18

merits—clearly favors staying the Federal Action. MB Financial brought state law claims in Illinois

19

state court. Ms. Walker’s suit is in federal court because of diversity jurisdiction, and she brings

20

four claims that arise under Illinois law. There is no doubt that the Illinois court is better suited to

21

decide issues that involve Illinois law. See Bushansky v. Armacost, No. C 12–01597 WHA, 2012

22

WL 3276937, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (“Given the high likelihood that this entire case is

23

governed by Delaware law, there is wisdom in letting Delaware judges decide these issues.”). And

24

“[t]he absence of federal law claims in this case removes one concern which might otherwise

25

override considerations such as avoiding piecemeal litigation.” Janupaul + Block Companies, LLC

26

v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 830 F. Supp. 2d 976, 985 (S.D. Cal. 2011).

27
28

The sixth factor—whether the state court proceedings are inadequate to protect the federal
litigant’s rights—also favors staying the Federal Action. “This factor is most often employed, and is

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

6

1

most important, where there are exclusively federal claims that could not be brought as part of the

2

state-court action.” Bushansky, 2012 WL 3276937, at *4 (citing R.R. St. & Co. Inc., 656 F.3d at

3

981). This is because “[t]his factor involves the state court’s adequacy to protect federal rights, not

4

the federal court’s adequacy to protect state rights.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Madonna, 914 F.2d

5

1364, 1370 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Moses, 460 U.S. at 26). Here, there are no federal rights to be

6

protected in either action.

7

The seventh factor—whether exercising jurisdiction would promote forum shopping—does not

8

favor staying the Federal Action. The Ninth Circuit has held that “courts may consider the vexatious

9

or reactive nature of either the federal or the state litigation” in an effort to avoid forum

might be heard.” R.R. St. & Co. Inc., 656 F.3d at 981 (quotation omitted). MB Financial does not

12
For the Northern District of California

shopping—“[t]he practice of choosing the most favorable jurisdiction or court in which a claim

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

address this factor in its papers, and the court has no reason to think that Ms. Walker has engaged in

13

forum shopping. Cf. Bushansky, 2012 WL 3276937, at *5 (finding the federal action potentially to

14

be “vexatious and reactive” where the federal complaint lifted identical text from the state action and

15

made only minor modifications to the claims and relief, the state action was highly publicized, and

16

the federal plaintiff chose to file a substantially similar federal suit than make his legal challenge in

17

the state actions).

18

Finally, the eight factor—whether the state court proceedings will resolve all issues before the

19

federal court—favors staying the action. With respect to this factor, substantial doubt about whether

20

the state proceedings will resolve the federal action generally precludes the granting of a stay

21

pursuant to Colorado River. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir.

22

1993). But this does not mean that the actions need to be identical for the state court proceedings to

23

resolve all of the issues before the federal court. Indeed, as the Seventh Circuit has made clear:

24

“Just as the parallel nature of the actions cannot be destroyed by simply tacking on a few more

25

defendants, neither can it be dispelled by repackaging the same issue under different causes of

26

action.” Clark v. Lacy, 376 F.3d 682, 686-87 (7th Cir. 2004) (finding federal and state actions to be

27

parallel where the “additional” claims in the federal complaint (abuse of control, gross

28

mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets) were premised on the defendants’ alleged breach of

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

7

claims—MB Financial brings a claim for declaratory relief in the Illinois Action and Ms. Walker

3

brings claims for conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty,

4

and breach of contract in the Federal Action—they all are based on the issues of whether Ms.

5

Walker properly revoked the Trust and whether MB Financial must comply with her disbursement

6

demands. Ms. Walker argues that the cases are not parallel because MB Financial is merely a

7

“stakeholder” in the Illinois Action but is a defendant sued for damages in the Federal Action, but

8

the court does not see how the relief changes things. She also argues that there are certain factual

9

allegations at issue in the Federal Action that are not at issue in the Illinois Action (i.e., $400,000 in

10

payments made by MB Financial to an attorney retained by Ms. Walker; MB Financial’s oversight

11

of Ms. Walker’s investments; MB Financial’s failure to provide her with certain information), but as

12
For the Northern District of California

their fiduciary duties). Here, as mentioned above, while the two actions contain different

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

MB Financial points out in reply, Ms. Walker has raised these allegations in her summary judgment

13

motion that is pending in the Illinois Action. See Reply, ECF No. 34 at 3. Accordingly, the court

14

finds that the two actions are “substantially similar” and that the Illinois Action, while it may not

15

resolve Ms. Walker’s individual claims, it likely will resolve the issues that underlie them.

16

As five of the factors support staying the Federal Action, and only one factor does not support it,

17

the court grants MB Financial’s motion. The court does not see why the Federal Action should be

18

stayed only until the Illinois court rules on Ms. Walker’s summary judgment motion, however. It is

19

not clear that the Illinois court’s ruling on Ms. Walker summary judgment will resolve all of the

20

issues. Staying the case until the Illinois Action is resolved entirely also will “ensure [ ] that the

21

federal forum will remain open if for some unexpected reason the state forum does turn out to be

22

inadequate,” “conserve court resources,” and avoid the risk of “mak[ing] premature and speculative

23

legal findings about the preclusive effect of various possible state judgments.” Attwood, 886 F.2d at

24

243, 245.

25

CONCLUSION

26

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS MB Financial’s motion. This action is STAYED

27

until the Illinois Action is resolved in its entirety and the Illinois court enters judgment. Once the

28

Illinois Court enters judgment, the parties shall file a joint status update about lifting the stay of this

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

8

1

action. In addition, the court SETS a status conference for March 27, 2014. The parties may appear

2

at it by telephone through Courtcall. The parties shall file a joint status update regarding the Illinois

3

Action no later than March 20, 2014.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 13-03601 LB
ORDER

9