Third Circuit: Dianoias Eatery LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co

 

The existence of unfiled potential legal claims arising from the same circumstances does not mean that a court lacks statutory jurisdiction to issue a requested declaratory judgment; under the statute, such claims aren't waived by seeking declaratory judgment as to the allocation of rights and responsibilities, and can be raised in a subsequent action.

Circuit precedent requiring the court to consider the redress from a federal court judgment doesn't implicate the effect of federal rulings on state law, but looks to the ability of a court to accord final relief to the parties.

Circuit precedent requiring the consideration of the litigation of identical issues in state court assumes identity of parties as well.

Even within the context of the pandemic, the issues raised here are generic issues of contract and policy exclusion interpretation, making a prudential remand on the ground of undetermined state law unjustified.

Since the state courts have no legislative priority in matters of public health, balancing policy exclusions against state public policy interests is not peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the state courts.

DISSENT

Factors relevant to prudential abstention aren't exhaustive; states need to fashion a comprehensive plan to recover from the pandemic; federal speculation on state law risks undue delay.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202954p.pdf

Second Circuit: Joseph Watley, Karin Hasemann v. Department of Children and Families

 

Under state's collateral preclusion principles, since the mental condition of the parents was sufficiently considered in the removal proceedings, the standard-specific question of sufficient accommodation can't be relitigated in federal court under the disabilities statute.

Joseph Watley, Karin Hasemann v. Department of Children and Families

Seventh Circuit: Nicole K. v. Terry Stigdon

A federal court should abstain from determining whether minors are categorically entitled to counsel in child-removal proceedings -- rather, denials in specific cases are subject to first review by the state's courts.

Nicole K. v. Terry Stigdon

Sixth Circuit: In re Franklin Harris, Jr.

Bankruptcy court correctly dismissed post-stay adversary suit on grounds of abstention, as the state court adverse possession claim underlying the adversary proceeding was better addressed in state court, the res wasn't part of the estate, and the plaintiffs in the state court proceeding were not involved in the bankruptcy case.

In re Franklin Harris, Jr.

Fifth Circuit: Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist

Dismissal of a civil tort claim under the Religious Matters abstention doctrine is inappropriate absent sufficient indication that the resolution of the question will force the court to interfere with religious government or matters of faith or doctrine.

Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist

Sixth Circuit: Ky. Waterways Alliance v. Kentucky Util. Co.

Act does not cover groundwater pollution or complex hydrological networks; the precedent suggesting this in fact discusses interconnected larger waters, and federalism and practical enforcement concerns dictate a narrower reading of the regulated bodies of water.

Prudential abstention is not available to the court where a citizen cause of action is directly created by a statute that makes use of factors that would suggest abstention.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0213p-06.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Rynearson v. Fergusun

(Rakoff (SDNY) on panel.)

When a person subject to a protective judicial order seeks to challenge the constitutionality of one of the statutes implicated by the order, federal courts are not required to abstain from the question, as the interference with the state criminal proceeding would be indirect and not dispositive.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/07/17-35853.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Joseph Zadeh, et al v. Mari Robinson, et al

While the medical profession generally is not a closely regulated industry for the purpose of determining the legitimate expectation of privacy of its members, pain management clinics might be a different case.  Grant of qualified immunity upheld, as the scope of legitimate targets of administrative subpoenas was not clearly defined at the time.

Search not pretextual, as it was not conducted entirely to uncover criminality.

Court appropriately prudentially declined to hear application to stay state medical board's investigation, which can be considered a judicial proceeding.

Supervisor who acted according to the usual practices of the department was not deliberately indifferent to the potential harms of subdelegation.

Concur dubitante: @justicewillett -- QI problematic.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50518%20-CV0.pdf