Unpublished Disposition, 841 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1987)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Centennial, Inc. appeals the decision of the district court dismissing Centennial's federal court action in favor of concurrent state court proceedings. All parties agree that the criteria set forth in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976), control the decision whether or not to dismiss this action.

We review abstention decisions using an abuse of discretion test. "In cases involving abstention, discretion must be exercised within the narrow and specific limits prescribed by the particular abstention doctrine involved. A district court should abstain only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to repair to the state court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest." Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Long Beach, 772 F.2d 534, 540 (9th Cir. 1985), citing C-Y Development Co. v. City of Redlands, 703 F.2d 375, 377 (9th Cir. 1983) (quotations omitted). We use identical standards when reviewing decisions to dismiss pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States. Id. We conclude that the district court's decision to dismiss the federal action without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion and, therefore, we affirm.

Generally, the pendency of a state court action is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in federal court. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817. The federal courts have a "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise the jurisdiction given to them. Id. However, considerations of wise judicial administration, including conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation, may outweigh the assertion of federal jurisdiction in a particular case. On our facts, the need to avoid piecemeal litigation and inconsistent decisions, the order in which the concurrent courts obtained and exercised jurisdiction, and the predominance of state law questions clearly tip the balance in favor of surrendering federal jurisdiction in favor of the state court proceedings.

Although Placer filed its action in state court and Centennial filed its action in federal court, both parties seek essentially the same relief: a declaration that their claims to the land at issue are valid as against anyone else's claims. Additionally, even if the federal action were to proceed, Placer must still proceed with its state action. Therefore, allowing both actions to proceed encourages, rather than avoids, generating additional litigation through permitting potentially inconsistent dispositions of property. Such a result is clearly contrary to Colorado River. 424 U.S. at 819.

Additionally, the state court first obtained and exercised jurisdiction of the res which is the subject of both actions. Because more progress has been made in the state proceeding than in the federal proceeding, the district court properly gave priority to the state action. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 21, 103 S. Ct. 927, 74 L. Ed. 2d 765 (1983).

Finally, the real issues here are state title issues. Although they involve aspects of federal law, the district court correctly concluded that state courts frequently resolve these matters. Although the federal law-state law distinction is of "ambiguous relevance," Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 23, the Colorado River majority expressly relied on the fact that federal law supplied only some of the relevant law and state law would control the majority of the litigation, when it affirmed the dismissal of the federal proceedings. Similarly, while this action will involve federal law to some extent, state title issues predominate. Therefore, the federal law-state law distinction also tips the balance in favor of dismissing the federal action.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's February 11, 1987 decision and order.

AFFIRMED.