Rice v. Grant et al

Filing 65

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the motion to reconsider the December 17 opinion and order [Doc. No. 61]; DENIES the defendants' motion for extension of time to submit it's views on abstention [Doc. No. 60] and the joint motion to cont inue the case management deadlines [Doc. No. 64] as moot; VACATES the December 3, 2018 scheduling order [Doc. No. 58]; and STAYS proceedings in this case until further order. The case will be restored to the active docket upon motion of either party, following disposition of the wrongful death action in the St. Joseph Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/14/19. (ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

RICKY R. RICE and ANGELA RICE,
Representatives of the ESTATE OF
RICK DALE RICE, Deceased,
Plaintiffs
v.
DOUGLAS EDWARD GRANT and
PRIME CHOICE MEATS, INC.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-448 RLM-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
The court denied Angela Rice’s motion to dismiss this action and motion for
partial summary judgment in December, and directed the parties to brief the
propriety of abstention. In response, Ms. Rice filed a motion to reconsider the
December 17 order and argued, in the alternative, that the case should be stayed
under the abstention doctrine. The defendants didn’t address the motion to
reconsider, but contend that the Colorado River doctrine doesn’t apply because
Ricky Rice isn’t a party to the state wrongful death action, so the state and federal
actions aren’t parallel. For the following reasons, the court denies the motion to
reconsider and stays this case pending disposition of the wrongful death action
in the St. Joseph Circuit Court.

Ms. Rice’s motion to reconsider is premised on an argument the court
already has considered and rejected – that Ricky Rice’s role as personal
representative of his father’s estate differs from Angela Rice’s role as special
administrator. The court recognized the difference, but held that both the personal
representative and the special administrator had authority to sue for wrongful
death in Indiana. Ms. Rice hasn’t demonstrated otherwise. Her motion raises new
arguments about Mr. Rice’s eligibility to serve as a personal representative in
Indiana, but Mr. Rice was appointed personal representative of the estate in
Michigan, not Indiana, and the evidence submitted in support of her new
argument can’t be characterized as newly discovered.
That leaves two wrongful death cases, one in state court and one here. Both
seek the same relief – to recover damages that “inure to the exclusive benefit of
the estate” for the payment of reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial
expenses, with any remaining amount going to the widow, Ms. Rice. IND. CODE §
34-23-1-1. As the court noted in it’s prior order, proceeding in this case under
those conditions wouldn’t be impossible, but it would be messy. The Colorado
River abstention doctrine provides a fair and reasonable alternative. See Colorado
River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).
The state and federal actions involve substantially the same parties (the
estate – which is represented by Mr. Rice and Ms. Rice – and the defendants)
“contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issues”, and there is a

2

“substantial likelihood that the state litigation will dispose of all claims presented
in the federal case.” Clark v. Lacy, 376 F.3d 682, 686 (7th Cir. 2004). Formal
symmetry between the cases isn’t required. Lumen Constr. Co. v. Brant Constr.
Co., 780 F.2d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 1985).
When the suits are parallel, as these are, the court considers a number of
factors in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting
abstention, including the inconvenience of the federal forum, the desirability of
avoiding piecemeal litigation, the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the
concurrent forums, the source of governing law (state or federal), the adequacy of
state-court action to protect the federal plaintiff's rights, the presence or absence
of concurrent jurisdiction, and the vexatious or contrived nature of the federal
claim. Clark v. Lacy, 376 F.3d at 686. Each of those factors weighs in favor of
abstention.
Accordingly, the court:
(1) DENIES the motion to reconsider the December 17 opinion and
order [Doc. No. 61];
(2) DENIES the defendants’ motion for extension of time to submit it’s
views on abstention [Doc. No. 60] and the joint motion to continue the case
management deadlines [Doc. No. 64] as moot;
(3) VACATES the December 3, 2018 scheduling order [Doc. No. 58];
and

3

(4) STAYS proceedings in this case until further order. The case will
be restored to the active docket upon motion of either party, following
disposition of the wrongful death action in the St. Joseph Circuit Court.

SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:

May 14, 2019

/s/ Robert Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court

4