Commonwealth Insurance Co. of America et al v. Stonestreet Construction, LLC et al

Filing 76

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion to Dismiss: The motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part and the pending matter stayed. Counsel shall file status reports with the Court on a quarterly basis, beginning January 1, 2013. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 8/7/12. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STONESTREET CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)
COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA as subrogee of RESIDENCES AT
BROWN & HOWARD WHARF CONDOMINIUM ASSOC.
and NEWSTONE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

C.A. No. 11-513 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
Before

the

Court

is

Defendants’

motion

to

dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or
in the alternative for abstention under Colorado River Water
Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).
No. 63.)

(ECF

For the reasons set forth in this order, the motion is

denied in part and granted in part.
Defendants first argue that dismissal is warranted under
Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

19(b)

because

Plaintiff

has

failed to join indispensable parties -- its subrogors -- whose
joinder would defeat diversity.

This argument fails because the

subrogors are not necessary within the meaning of Rule 19(a) -a prerequisite to application of Rule 19(b).

The Court can

“accord

complete

relief

among

existing

parties,”

and

the

subrogors do not “claim[] an interest relating to the subject”
of this action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A), (B).

With respect to the Colorado River factors, “the danger of
piecemeal

litigation

is

the

paramount

consideration.”

Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. City of New York, 762
F.2d 205, 211 (2d Cir. 1985).

In light of the fact that state

court plaintiffs assert claims arising out of the same incident
against some of the defendants in this case, the danger here is
substantial.

Therefore, the Court is of the view that these

cases are best resolved in one forum, namely state court.
However, the parties have also represented that the state
court cases may fall out on motions to dismiss or motions for
summary

judgment.

Accordingly,

this

Court

exercises

discretion under Colorado River to stay this case.
existing

state

court

cases

be

dismissed,

this

available to Plaintiff to pursue its claims.
DENIED
stayed.

in

part

and

GRANTED

in

part

and

the

its

Should the

Court

remains

The motion is
pending

matter

Counsel shall file status reports with the Court on a

quarterly basis, beginning January 1, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: August 7, 2012
2