Granite State Insurance Company v. Songer Steel Services Inc.
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion To Lift Stay and Remand to State Court Pursuant to the Colorado River Abstention Doctrine. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GRANITE STATE INSURANCE CO., as
subrogee of CONNELLY CRANE RENTAL
CORP.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-14144
v.
SONGER STEEL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND
REMAND TO STATE COURT PURSUANT TO THE COLORADO RIVER
ABSTENTION DOCTRINE”
On September 23, 2016 Plaintiff Granite State Insurance Co. filed a “Request to
Lift Stay and Motion to Remand to State Court Pursuant to the Colorado River
Abstention Doctrine.” (Dkt. # 8.) Plaintiff’s motion requests remand or, in the alternative,
that the court continue the stay and grant Plaintiff leave to file a motion to intervene in
the related state court action. The matter has been fully briefed and a hearing is
unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the court
will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Plaintiff brings this
action as subrogee of its insured, Connelly Crane Rental Co. Connelly rented a crawler
crane to U.S. Steel Corp. For use at U.S. Steel’s Ecorse, Michigan facility in or around
early April, 2014. (Dkt. # 9, Pg. ID 68.) U.S. Steel hired Defendant Songer Steel
Services, Inc. to assist with the crane’s operation to remove collapsed ductwork at the
U.S. Steel facility. In the early morning of April 4, 2014, the crane tipped over, killing the
operator. (Dkt. # 1-2, Pg. ID 11-12.)
On May 29, 2015 the decedent crane operator’s estate filed a wrongful death
action in Wayne County Circuit Court against, among other parties, Defendant Songer
and U.S. Steel. (Dkt. # 8, Pg. ID 55.) That state court proceeding has grown to include
issues surrounding the collapsed ductwork and several defendants unrelated to the tip
over. (Id.) On October 27, 2015 Plaintiff filed the present action related to the damage to
the crane in Wayne County Circuit Court, (Dkt. # 1-1) and Defendant removed the
action to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on November 24, 2015. (Dkt. #
1.)
An agreement reached by the parties to this case and the parties in the related
state court proceeding allowed Plaintiff reasonable, but limited, participation in discovery
and a potential global settlement. This court in turn stayed and administratively closed
the present action in its Order entered March 18, 2016. (Dkt. # 7.) Since that time, the
parties to the state court proceeding, with some participation from Plaintiff, have
conducted dozens of depositions and have nearly completed a mediation process that
Plaintiff anticipates will be unsuccessful. (Dkt. # 8, Pg. ID 59-60.) The state court
proceeding was scheduled for a status conference on October 31, 2016. (Dkt. # 9.)
Plaintiff has stated its intent to file a motion to intervene at the October 31 status
conference pursuant to a stipulated order in the state court proceeding. (Dkt. # 10, Pg.
ID 88.) Rekated to this intent, the parties assert here that Plaintiff “may not seek the
state court’s permission to intervene when it currently has the exact same cause of
action pending” in this court. (Dkt. # 9, Pg. ID 71.) Accordingly, Plaintiff filed the instant
2
motion, asking this court to lift the stay and remand the proceeding based on Colorado
River Water Conservation Dist. V. U.S., 424 U.S. 800 (1976) or, in the alternative,
continue the stay “with authority to file an intervention pleading in state court.” (Dkt. # 8,
Pg. ID 54.) The court has no interest in interfering with Plaintiff’s intended state court
filings, but is not persuaded as to the predicates of the motion as presently stated.
II. DISCUSSION
In Colorado River, the Supreme Court held that federal courts may abstain from
hearing a case solely because similar pending state court litigation exists. Colorado
River, 424 U.S. at 817; Romine v. Compuserve Inc., 160 F.3d 337, 339 (6th Cir. 1998).
“[D]espite the ‘virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the
jurisdiction given them,’ . . . considerations of judicial economy and federal-state comity
may justify abstention in situations involving the contemporaneous exercise of
jurisdiction by state and federal courts.” Romine, 160 F.3d at 339 (quoting Colorado
River, 424 U.S. at 817).
At the outset, the court notes that it lacks the ability to remand this action based
on abstention doctrine. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co. 517 U.S. 706, 719-20
(1996) (holding that federal courts do not have the power to remand cases based on
abstention principles in common-law actions for damages). The Fifth Circuit has
succinctly addressed this issue:
It is clear, though, that remand is not an option. In addition to being
unsupported by any authority in the removal statute or elsewhere, it is
simply illogical. Where a court has already determined under the Colorado
River analysis that an existing state court case “will be an adequate
vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the
parties,” [Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. V. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460
U.S. 1, 28 (1983)] no purpose is served by sending the federal case back
to state court to litigate the same issues.
3
Saucier v. Aviva Life & Annuity Co., 701 F.3d 458, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2012). The parties
agree, but do not explain how application of Colorado River abstention would authorize
the court to remand the case as Plaintiff requests; the widely recognized alternative is
simply to continue the stay. See Bates v. Van Buren Twp., 122 F. App’x. 803, 809 (6th
Cir. 2004) (“We therefore join other circuits in requiring a stay of proceedings rather
than a dismissal in Colorado River abstention cases.”) Plaintiff’s request for remand
must be denied.
Further, an analysis of Colorado River abstention principles demonstrates that it
would be inappropriate here. In deciding whether abstention under Colorado River
would be appropriate, courts must first determine whether the proceedings are
“parallel.” Romine, 160 F.3d at 339. If the proceedings are parallel, the court then
considers the following factors: (1) whether the state court has assumed over any res or
property; (2) whether the federal forum is less convenient to the parties; (3) avoidance
of piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained; (5) whether the
source of governing law is state or federal; (6) the adequacy of the state court action to
protect the federal plaintiff’s rights; (7) the relative progress of the state and federal
proceedings; and (8) the presence or absence of concurrent jurisdiction. Id. at 340-41.
These factors “do not comprise a mechanical checklist. Rather, they require ‘a careful
balancing of the important factors as they apply in a give[n] case’ depending on the
particular facts at hand. Id. at 341 (quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 15-16).
To be “parallel,” the proceedings must be “substantially similar.” Id. at 340. Other
circuits consider whether there is an identity of parties and whether the issues and relief
sought are the same in both proceedings. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Karp,
4
108 F.3d 17, 22 (2nd Cir. 1997). Here, the state court proceeding is vastly more
complex, involves an accident entirely different from the crane tip over, and does not
raise the issue of property damage to the crane. (Dkt. # 9, Pg. ID 78-79.) These issues
are not substantially similar within the meaning of Romine, 160 F.3d at 339-40, and are
therefore not parallel. Colorado River abstention would be inappropriate. Id.
Even if the proceedings were parallel, the court concludes that a review of the
Colorado River factors counsels against abstention. Id. at 340-41. In particular, the court
is not persuaded that two separate proceedings resolving Defendant’s negligence raises
the level of concern regarding “piecemeal litigation” likely to present an “exceptional
circumstance” like the complex class litigation at issue in Romine. Id. Further, because
Plaintiff is not actually a party to the concurrent state court proceeding, the state court is
not presently capable of adequately protecting Plaintiff’s rights. In that sense, Plaintiff’s
Colorado River argument is premature. The remaining factors either favor exercising
jurisdiction or do not counsel strongly enough against to overcome federal courts’
preference for hearing cases properly in front of it. See Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 16
(explaining that the analysis turns on “a careful balancing of the important factors as
they apply in a given case, with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of
jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the court will deny Plaintiff’s request for Colorado River
abstention on this alternative ground as well.
Plaintiff’s alternative request is that the court continue the stay and “allow”
Plaintiff to file its motion to intervene in the state court proceeding. (Dkt. # 8, Pg. ID 54.)
The parties agree, but without explanation, that Plaintiff “may not seek the state court’s
permission to intervene when it currently has the exact same cause of action pending”
5
in this court. (Dkt. # 9, Pg. ID 71.) Assuming, for the purposes of this motion, that the
parties are correct, and in light of the above analysis of Colorado River and the court’s
“virtually unflagging obligation” to hear cases properly in front of it, the court must deny
Plaintiff’s request. This court cannot control proceedings in another jurisdiction, and will
not purport to limit, permit, or endorse filings that may be presented to another court.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Lift Stay and Remand Pursuant to
Colorado River Abstention Doctrine” (Dkt. # 8) is DENIED.
S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 7, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, November 7, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notes43CD49\15-14144.GRANITESTATE.colorado.river.tlh.wpd
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?