Fourth Circuit Clarifies Abstention Under the Colorado River Doctrine | Practical Law

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Abstention Under the Colorado River Doctrine | Practical Law

In vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the district court's abstention under the Colorado River abstention doctrine was an abuse of discretion because the state and federal actions were not parallel.

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Abstention Under the Colorado River Doctrine

Practical Law Legal Update w-006-5567 (Approx. 3 pages)

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Abstention Under the Colorado River Doctrine

by Practical Law Litigation
Published on 22 Feb 2017 • USA (National/Federal)
In vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the district court's abstention under the Colorado River abstention doctrine was an abuse of discretion because the state and federal actions were not parallel.
On February 21, 2017, in vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the district court's abstention under the Colorado River abstention doctrine was an abuse of discretion because the state and federal actions were not parallel ( (4th Cir. Feb. 21, 2017)).
The case involves a dispute between two clergymen, each believing himself to be the proper leader of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. Bishop Charles G. vonRosenberg brought this action against Bishop Mark J. Lawrence, alleging Lanham Act violations and seeking declaratory and nondeclaratory relief. In response, Lawrence asked the district court to abstain and stay the federal action pending resolution of a related state court case filed by a faction of Lawrence's supporters.
In 2013, the district court granted Lawrence's motion to abstain and dismiss the case under the Brillhart/Wilton doctrine. On Bishop vonRosenberg's appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States governs abstention decisions in actions where the plaintiff seeks both declaratory and nondeclaratory relief (424 U.S. 800 (1976)). On remand, the district court applied Colorado River but again abstained and Bishop vonRosenberg again appealed.
The Fourth Circuit explained that under the Colorado River doctrine, a federal court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction only if exceptional circumstances justify doing so. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must first determine whether the federal and state actions are parallel, which requires that:
  • The parties in both actions be identical.
  • The state action will completely and promptly resolve the issues between the parties.
Under Colorado River, even if the federal and state suits are duplicative, a court must also balance several other factors before abstaining.
The Fourth Circuit held that the district court's decision to abstain in favor of the state court action was an abuse of discretion because the state and federal actions were not parallel, finding that the federal and state actions involved different parties and different claims. For example:
  • Neither Bishop vonRosenberg nor Bishop Lawrence is a party to the state action.
  • The state action will not resolve every claim at issue in the federal action. The Episcopal Church's Lanham Act claims and Bishop vonRosenberg's individual false advertising claims were not before the state court.