United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Nina
Y. Wang Magistrate Judge
This
case was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1 on July 16, 2018. [#8;
#9]. This matter now comes before the court on two motions
filed by Plaintiff Anne Maureen Dowling
(“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Dowling”): (1)
Ex Parte Motion to Stay Proceedings [#13] and (2)
Notice Requesting Administrative Closure, [#16, filed
September 7, 2018].[1] After fully considering the record and the
relevant case law, the court now orders and recommends as
follows.
FACTS
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July
5, 2018, Ms. Dowling filed this action concerning an alleged
sexual assault committed by Defendant Monte Michael Wedl
(“Defendant Wedl” or “Mr. Wedl”) that
occurred on a flight operated by Defendant United Air Lines,
Inc. (“UAL”) that departed from Hong Kong, S.A.R.
to San Francisco, CA on or about July 9, 2016. [#1]. The next
day, Plaintiff filed an identical matter in California state
court (“California action” or “California
matter”). [#13 at 1]. In this case, UAL was served on
August 16, 2018, but has not entered an appearance. [#11].
Mr. Wedl has not yet been served. [#12].
On
August 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay proceedings
based on the identical California action. [#11]. This court
set a Telephonic Status Conference for September 6, 2018, to
discuss the request for a stay with counsel. [#14]. At that
Status Conference, counsel for UAL made a special appearance
and stated that, while it would not contest personal
jurisdiction in the California action, it would contest
personal jurisdiction here. [#15, #16 at 3]. Given the
indefinite duration of a stay based upon the adjudication of
the California action, this court discussed administrative
closure with leave for opening with good cause, as an
alternative to a stay, with the Parties. [#15]. Both counsel
for Ms. Dowling and counsel for UAL agreed that
administrative closure, to the extent that it preserved
statute of limitations and personal jurisdiction issues,
would be appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed her Motion
Requesting Administrative Closure. [#16].
LEGAL
STANDARD
Plaintiff
represents that these matters are identical, and on that
basis, moved for a stay of the federal case pursuant to the
Colorado River doctrine. [#13]. Application of the
Colorado River doctrine requires two steps: First,
determining whether or not the matters are parallel, Fox
v. Maulding, 16 F.3d 1079, 1081 (10th Cir. 1994), and
then determining whether staying or dismissing the federal
case is warranted based on a four-factor balancing test: (1)
simultaneous jurisdiction over a single res; (2) the relative
convenience of the forums; (3) the order in which proceedings
were initiated; (4) the need to avoid piecemeal litigation.
See Rienhardt v. Kelly, 164 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th
Cir 1999) (reciting the criteria for applying the doctrine)
(citing Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)).
This
court agrees that the Colorado River doctrine
applies and this court should abstain from proceeding with
this action until the resolution of the state court matter.
The state court action in California involves precisely the
same parties, the same claims concerning the same conduct,
and was filed nearly contemporaneously with this action.
See [#13 at 2, 3; #16]. Thus, the actions are
parallel. The four-factor balancing test warrants
administrative closure as well. As mentioned, UAL has agreed
to accept service of process in the California action and
while it will not challenge personal jurisdiction in that
court, it would challenge personal jurisdiction in this
court. [#16 at 3]. Defendant Wedl has not been served in
either action. Abstaining from proceeding with this case
pending the resolution of the California action will avoid
piecemeal litigation and may resolve all claims that could be
presented in this case.
Instead
of staying the case, however, this court finds that
administrative closure is more appropriate, given the fact
that the California action just recently commenced; that no
trial has been set in that matter (or this one); that the
duration of that proceeding is unknown at this time; and that
the resolution of the California action may effectively
resolve this one as well. Through administrative closure, the
Parties may preserve any issues or arguments with respect to
statute of limitations and/or personal jurisdiction. In
addition, the court notes that the allegations in the
Complaint do not suggest that Defendant Wedl is a resident or
citizen of Colorado, and therefore, this court's ability
to exercise personal jurisdiction over him might also be
contested.
Because
all Parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of a
Magistrate Judge, this matter should be reassigned to a
District Judge pursuant to D. C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c)(3)(b).
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing reasons, this court ORDERS
that:
(1) The
Motion to Stay Proceedings [#13] is DENIED;
(2) The
Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to REDRAW
this action to a District ...