Keeton v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting (2063) Motion to Dismiss in case 3:11-md-02308-TBR-LLK; granting (6) Motion to Dismiss in case 3:14-cv-00646-TBR. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 3/3/2015. Associated Cases: 3:11-md-02308-TBR-LLK, 3:14-cv-00646-TBRcc: Counsel(KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: SKECHERS TONING SHOE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Master File No. 3:11-MD-2308-TBR
MDL No. 2308

MARY KEETON
v.

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-646-TBR

SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Docket #2063). The
Plaintiff Mary Keeton has not responded. This matter is now ripe. For the following reasons,
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket #2063) is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint of Mary Keeton pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) 1 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants argue approximately one year prior to filing
this federal lawsuit Keeton filed a state court complaint 2 asserting similar claims and seeking
similar relief. Therefore, Defendants seek to have Keeton’s later-filed federal lawsuit dismissed
on the grounds it is duplicative.
If a federal court has jurisdiction, it generally will not abstain from hearing the case.
Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976) (“Abstention
from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule”). Nevertheless, a federal
court may abstain if concurrent litigation is pending in state court. In deciding whether it is
1

“In considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a district court may
consider factual matters outside the pleadings and resolve factual disputes.” Anestis v. United
States, 749 F.3d 520, 524 (6th Cir. 2014).
2

The state court case is Shannon Tatro, et al. v. Skechers U.S.A., et al., Case No. BC525450 filed
in the Superior Court of California.
1

appropriate to abstain, the court must consider five factors: “(1) which court first assumed
jurisdiction over the res or property involved, (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) the
desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation, (4) the order of filing for the state and federal
actions, and (5) the presence of a federal question.” Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., 142
F.3d 326, 329 (6th Cir. 1998). Courts have also considered other factors, such as relative
progress of each case and whether the source of governing law is state or federal. Romine v.
Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337, 341 (6th Cir. 1998).
In this case, all of the factors are either neutral or weigh in favor of this court abstaining
from exercising jurisdiction. The state court action was filed approximately one year before this
action and “substantial discovery has been taken.” (Docket #2063). There is no federal question
at stake; this case is governed by state law. Moreover, there is the “danger of piecemeal
litigation,” which arises whenever “different courts adjudicate the identical issue, thereby
duplicating judicial effort and potentially rendering conflicting results.” Romine, 160 F.3d at
341. While neither court has assumed jurisdiction over any property, the absence of this factor is
merely neutral.
“When a case proceeds on parallel tracks in state and federal court, the threat to efficient
adjudication is self-evident.” Id. Furthermore, the “legitimacy of the court system in the eyes of
the public and fairness to the individual litigants also are endangered by duplicative suits that are
the product of gamemanship or that result in conflicting adjudications.” Id.
Accordingly, the Court finds it is appropriate to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over
Mary Keeton’s claims as these claims are currently pending in a state court action. Where
abstention is appropriate, the “general course of action is to stay the proceeding pending the
conclusion of the state action.” Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Associated Eng'Rs, 2013 U.S.

2

Dist. LEXIS 169617 (W.D. Ky. 2013). However, the court may dismiss the federal action if,
“[o]nce the state action is complete, there will be no remaining issues in the federal action.” Id.
In this case, Keeton has raised the same claims as she raised in the state court action, and
resolution of the state court action will resolve all issues before this Court. Accordingly,
dismissal of this case without prejudice is warranted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket #2063) is GRANTED
and Plaintiff Mary Keeton’s complaint is dismissed.

March 3, 2015

3