Pulliam v. Brown et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Stay; Answer due 11/30/15 . Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 11/10/2015. (dbm) Modified on 11/10/2015 (jlm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION

SEAN C. PULLIAM
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-137-SA-DAS

HUGH E. BROWN, and
HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Hugh E. Brown. This
case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred in Pontotoc County, Mississippi on
November 8, 2012. In the instant Motion [7], Defendant Brown requests that this federal case be
stayed pending the outcome of a related action in the Circuit Court of Pontotoc County,
Mississippi, or in the alternative for additional time to respond to the complaint. The other
parties in this action have not responded to this motion, and the allotted time for doing so has
expired. L. U. CIV. R. 7(b)(4).
The circumstances in which a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction over
a case when a related action is pending in state court are narrow. Colorado River Water Conserv.
Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976); Moses H.
Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28, 103 S. Ct. 927, 74 L. Ed. 2d 765
(1982). Under the Colorado River doctrine, a court may abstain from a case that is part of
“parallel, duplicative litigation under ‘exceptional circumstances’.” Saucier v. Aviva Life &
Annuity Co., 701 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kelly Inv., Inc. v. Continental Common
Corp., 315 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2002); see Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813, 96 S. Ct. 1236.
When one case is pending in state court and the other in federal court, “only the clearest of

justifications” will warrant a stay. Id; see also Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 28, 103 S. Ct. 927.
Further, the Fifth Circuit has identified “parallel actions” as those “involving the same parties
and the same issues.” African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Lucien, 756 F.3d 788, 797 (5th Cir.
2014) (citing Exxon Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 1997);
Republic Bank Dallas Nat’l Ass’n v. McIntosh, 828 F.2d 1120, 1121 (5th Cir. 1987); PPG Indus.,
Inc. v. Cont’l Oil Co., 478 F.2d 674, 682 (5th Cir. 1973)).
In support of his motion to stay, Defendant Brown maintains that there is a related action
pending in state court that arose out of the same accident, and involves the same defendants, but
was brought by a different plaintiff. According to Brown there is also a third-party complaint
pending in the state court case that should be resolved prior to the prosecution of this federal
action.1 Because the related state court action involves different parties, this federal case is not a
parallel action for abstention purposes.2 Id.
With no clear justification to support a stay, the court finds that the instant case does not
fall within the narrow parameters for abstention articulated by the Supreme Court and adopted by
the Fifth Circuit. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 819, 96 S. Ct. 1236; Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at
28, 103 S. Ct. 927; Saucier, 701 F.3d at 462.
For these reasons, the Defendant’s motion to stay is DENIED.

1

Brown does not articulate the party, basis, or subject matter of the third-party complaint in his motion.
When pending state and federal cases are “sufficiently parallel,” courts apply six factors to determine whether
“exceptional circumstances” exist. Am. Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir.
2013) (citing Brown v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384, 395 (5th Cir. 2006)). Even if the relevant state and federal
cases were “sufficiently parallel,” Brown has simply not brought sufficient information before the Court for a
substantive application of the factors from Biles. Id. Brown does not articulate any facts or arguments in his motion
to assist the Court in the application of the factors, nor does he cite to any federal authority in support of his request
to stay this federal action. Brown cites two Mississippi Supreme Court cases in support of his assertion that a
decision to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a separate action is within the discretion of the court. These
cases are not relevant to the analysis of federal jurisdiction. Further, under the relevant federal authorities the
application of particular abstention doctrines is not discretionary. See id.
2

2

The Defendant’s alternative motion for additional time to respond to the Plaintiff’s
complaint is GRANTED. A response must be filed by November 30, 2015.
SO ORDERED this the 10th day of November, 2015.
/s/_Sharion Aycock
_______
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3