At page 1208 Requirements for parallel federal and state litigation9 citing casesthe same parties and issues
- Cleartrac, LLC v. Lanrick Contractors, LLC, 432 F. Supp. 3d 648 (E.D. La. 2020).publishedCo., 129 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 1997) (“This circuit has clearly held that in order to consider the propriety of a stay pending disposition of state court actions, the federal and state cases must be parallel, meaning that they involve th…
- African Methodist Episcopal v. Willard Lucien, Jr., 756 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2014).publishedId. (citing PPG Indus., Inc. v. Cont’l Oil Co., 478 F.2d 674, 682 (5th Cir. 1973) and Mendiola v. Hart, 561 F.2d 1207, 1208 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam)). 35 .
- Exxon Corp. v. St Paul Fire, No. 96-31309 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 1998).publishedHartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Costa Lines Cargo Services, Inc., 903 F.2d 352, 360 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted); Mendiola v. Hart, 561 F.2d 1207, 1208 (5th Cir. 1977).
- Exxon Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 1997).publishedHartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Costa Lines Cargo Services, Inc., 903 F.2d 352, 360 (5th Cir.1990) (internal citations omitted); Mendiola v. Hart, 561 F.2d 1207, 1208 (5th Cir.1977).
- William T. Griffin v. Sandy Howard Prods., 800 F.2d 612 (6th Cir. 1986).publishedSee Mendiola v. Hart, 561 F.2d 1207, 1208 (5th Cir.1977).
- Diamond Offshore Co. v. A&B Builders, Inc., 302 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2002).published Suits are "parallel," for the purposes of determining whether Colorado River abstention applies, if they "involv[e] the same parties and the same issues." McIntosh, 828 F.2d at 1121 (quoting PPG Indus., Inc. v. Continental Oil Co., 478 F.2…
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Costa Lines Cargo Servs., Inc., Evergreen Marine Corp. (New York) Ltd., Etc., 903 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1990).publishedBefore a court considers the propriety of a stay pending disposition of a state court action, the federal and state eases should be “parallel” — “involving the same parties and the same issues.” Republic-Bank, Dallas, Nat’l Assoc. v. McInt…
- Republicbank Dallas, Nat'l Ass'n v. Burt H. McIntosh Charles L. Snyder, Stan Patton & William D. Flemister, 828 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1987).published(the same parties and issues)
Other citing cases
- Ystueta v. Parris, 486 F. Supp. 127 (N.D. Ga. 1980).published
v.
Raymond P. HART, J. J. Mata, C. H. Mata, and L. H. C. Operating Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Appellant Mendiola, a citizen of the Republic of Mexico, brought this diversity action [1] against three physicians, all residents of Texas, and a hospital, incorporated under the laws of Texas, for malpractice. She simultaneously filed suit in the Texas state court against a fourth doctor, Roberto Gomez Lugo, a Mexican citizen, on the same cause of action. [2]
Two of the defendants (Dr. Hart and L.H.C. Operating Co., Inc., the hospital) moved for dismissal for failure of appellant to join Dr. Lugo. They alleged that Dr. Lugo was an indispensable party because he had participated in the surgical procedure which had given rise to the malpractice claim and because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur had been invoked to support the claim.
Without reaching this issue, the district court dismissed the action, without prejudice, because of the pendency of the state court proceedings against Dr. Lugo. The court reasoned that appellant had an adequate remedy in state court since all the remaining potential defendants (appellees here) could be joined in the pending state action.
The appellees cite no case, and our research discloses none, that authorizes a district court to dismiss a diversity action solely on the ground that the claim could be litigated in the context of a pending state court action. This is not even a situation where actions involving the same parties and issues are simultaneously pending in state and federal courts; in which event, the district court would have discretion to stay, but not to dismiss, the proceedings before it to await the outcome of potentially dispositive state litigation. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co., 478 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1973).
The district court lacked discretion to dismiss this action, and we therefore reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the proceedings below.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS.
. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1970).
. Appellant originally filed a suit in the federal district court below naming all four doctors and the hospital as defendants. The district court dismissed that action because there was no diversity of citizenship between appellant and Dr. Lugo, the Mexican citizen.