Gammon v. McLain et al

Filing 18

ORDER AND REASONS denying 13 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 1/13/15. (jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VIRGINIA GAMMON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR
CHILD, SOPHIE GAMMON,

CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs,
NO: 14-1184
VERSUS
LAWRENCE MCLAIN, ET AL.,

SECTION: R(1)

Defendants.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before

the

Court

is

plaintiffs'

motion

to

stay

federal

proceedings in this case pending resolution of a parallel action in
Louisiana state court.

The Court denies the motion because

plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to
warrant a stay.
I.

Background
On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs Virginia and Sophie Gammon brought

this action in the Eastern District of Louisiana against defendants
Lawrence McLain, Safeco Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, and Geico Insurance Company.1

The complaint arises from

a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 31, 2013 in St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana.

Plaintiffs were allegedly injured when

the vehicle in which they were traveling was rear-ended by a
vehicle driven by defendant McLain.
1

R. Doc. 1.

Plaintiffs assert that the

accident was caused by the negligence of McLain and seek to hold
Safeco and Liberty Mutual liable as McLain's insurers.

Plaintiff

also named her uninsured motorist carrier, Geico, as a defendant in
this action.
On May 28, 2014, five days after plaintiffs commenced this
action in federal court, Geico filed suit against McLain and Safeco
in Louisiana state court based on the same automobile accident at
issue

in

the

federal

proceeding.2

Plaintiffs

have

moved

to

intervene in the state court proceeding.3
Plaintiffs now move the Court to stay the pending federal
action so that the parties can proceed to trial in the parallel
state court lawsuit.4

Defendant Geico opposes the motion arguing

that a stay is not warranted under the circumstances.5
II.

Discussion
Federal courts have a “virtual unflagging obligation . . . to

exercise

the

jurisdiction

given

them.”

Colo.

River

Water

Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).
“However, in ‘extraordinary and narrow’ circumstances, a district
court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case when

2

R. Doc. 14-1.

3

R. Doc. 13-1 at 2.

4

R. Doc. 13.

5

R. Doc. 14.
2

there is a concurrent state proceeding . . . .”

Murphy v. Uncle

Ben’s, Inc., 168 F.3d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Colo.
River, 424 U.S. at 813).

The court’s decision whether to abstain

should

considerations

be

based

on

of

“[w]ise

judicial

administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources
and

comprehensive

disposition

of

litigation.”

Id.

(quoting

Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183
(1952)).
For a court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the
Colorado River doctrine, it first must find that the federal and
state court actions are “parallel.” Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
v. Costa Lines Cargo Servs., Inc., 903 F.2d 352, 360 (5th Cir.
1990).

Actions are parallel when the same parties are litigating

the same issues. See Republicbank Dallas, Nat’l Ass’n v. McIntosh,
828 F.2d 1120, 1121 (5th Cir. 1987).

Here, both the federal and

state proceedings revolve around the May 31, 2013 automobile
accident and involve the same parties.

Accordingly, the Court

finds that the state and federal actions are parallel.
The

Court

circumstances

next

exist

must

that

determine

would

permit

jurisdiction in the instant matter.

whether
the

exceptional

court

to

decline

See Murphy, 168 F.3d at 738.

The Supreme Court has set forth six factors to guide this inquiry:
(1) assumption by either court of jurisdiction over a res; (2) the
relative

inconvenience

of

the

forums;
3

(3)

the

avoidance

of

piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was
obtained by the concurrent forums; (5) whether and to what extent
federal law provides the rules of decision on the merits; and (6)
the adequacy of the state proceedings to protect the rights of the
party invoking federal jurisdiction.
515 U.S. 277, 285-86 (1995).

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,

“No one factor is necessarily

determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account
both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of
factors counseling against that exercise is required.”
River, 424 U.S. at 818-19.

Colo.

The Court must balance the factors

carefully, “with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the
exercise of jurisdiction.”

Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983).

The Court now applies the

Colorado River abstention factors to the parallel federal and state
actions in this matter.

(1)

Assumption by Either Court of Jurisdiction Over a Res
Neither

this

Court

nor

the

state

court

has

assumed

jurisdiction over any res or property in this case. The absence of
this factor, however, is not neutral.
Rather, it weighs against abstention.

4

Murphy, 168 F.3d at 738.
Id.

(2)

The Relative Inconvenience of the Forums
Both

the

federal

southeastern Louisiana.

and

(3)

proceedings

are

located

in

Therefore, neither forum is more or less

convenient than the other.
against abstention.

state

The absence of this factor weighs

Id.

The Avoidance of Piecemeal Litigation
The federal and state actions involve the same plaintiffs, the

same defendants, and the same issues, namely, whether McLain was
negligent in the motor vehicle accident that allegedly resulted in
plaintiffs’

injuries.

duplicative,

not

Thus,

the

piecemeal.

“The

litigation
prevention

at
of

issue

is

duplicative

litigation is not a factor to be considered in an abstention
determination.”

Evanston Ins. Co. v. Jimco, Inc., 844 F.2d 1185,

1192 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 817).
Rather, “[d]uplicative litigation, wasteful though it may be, is a
necessary cost of our nation’s maintenance of two separate and
distinct judicial systems possessed of frequently overlapping
jurisdiction.”

Black Sea Inv., Ltd. v. United Heritage Corp., 204

F.3d

(5th

647,

650

Cir.

2000)

(emphasis

in

original).

The

animating concern here is the “danger of inconsistent rulings with
respect to a piece of property.”

Id. at 650-51.

res involved in this case, no such danger exists.
this factor weighs against abstention.
5

As there is no
Accordingly,

See id. at 651.

(4)

The Order in Which Jurisdiction Was Obtained by the Concurrent
Forums
The Supreme Court has stated that “priority should not be

measured exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather
in terms of how much progress has been made in the two actions.”
Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 21.

Here, the federal court action was

filed five days before the state court action. The parties dispute
which case is further along, but it appears that both proceedings
remain in their infancy.6
abstention.

As such, this factor weighs against

Murphy, 168 F.3d at 738-39; see also Black Sea, 204

F.3d at 651.

(5)

Whether and to What Extent Federal Law Provides the Rules of
Decision on the Merits
Both actions are governed by state tort and insurance law.

That no federal law issue exists does not, alone, weigh in favor of
abstention.

Evanston,

844

F.2d

at

1193.

The

presence

of

exclusively state law issues “weighs in favor of surrender only in
rare circumstances.”
task

is

to

Id.

As the Supreme Court has stated, “the

ascertain

whether

there

exist

‘exceptional

circumstances,’ the ‘clearest of justifications,’ that can suffice
under

Colorado

jurisdiction.”

6

River

to

justify

the

surrender

Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 26.

R. Doc. 13-1 at 4; R. Doc. 14 at 4.
6

of

that

Here, the cases

pose basic tort and insurance questions, and plaintiffs have made
no

showing

of

any

exceptional

abstention in this matter.
neutral.
(6)

circumstances

that

call

for

Therefore, this factor is at most

See Black Sea, 204 F.3d at 651.

The Adequacy of the State Proceedings in Protecting the Rights
of the Party Invoking Federal Jurisdiction
This final factor “can only be a neutral factor or one that

weighs against, not for, abstention.”

Evanston, 844 F.2d at 1193.

Again, both actions are governed exclusively by state tort and
insurance law.
court.

Plaintiffs will have adequate protection in state

As such, this factor is neutral.

Summary of Colorado River Factors
Four factors clearly weigh against abstention, while two are
neutral. No factor supports staying the federal court action. The
Court finds a stay unwarranted in this case.

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiffs' motion
to stay.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of January, 2015.
__
_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7