the case again in the colorado river and there's a good reason for that because this court should not see reverse stays with the frequency they are going to see them if this judge's decision is upheld the case a wide variety of grounds then no problem that has been applied more rope more broadly few cases where  there are issues especially issues of state law of complexity and widespread interest and this may not qualify by those criteria i agree that other circuits and other district courts have taken colorado river to different places and i would argue that this is a pretty word has never taken colorado from this court you have or found colorado river abstenti but these are our bread and butter things that course the site of all time well but they're there questions of state law they seem to be novel and they seem to bear on those two statutes have nothing to do with the fundamental interest in the case of due process under the constitution and those two statutes violated one with six eight zero one would provide an additional grounds for why there was a due process violation because if a government did something that was illegal under its own statute then there's a problem but the fundamental issues in the case are not federal issue one of the claims in the federal case as i understand it it's it's couched as a declaratory judgment claim but it is the claim that the demolition is on lawful because now but if the if the improvement is to ramp up the extent of procedural protection that doesn't really answer the question whether whether the mayor can assign a function to the agency out what's necessary proffered under also that's a very distinct mandatory obligations i don't think that's not at all i think that simple fair point but if we're debating the degree of novelty and importance and so on one difficult point for you is the standard of review which is abuse of discretion and not seems to be a little bit in the weeds of the district complicated little issues which viddy and and and we expect the district court here to weigh those complicated issues and give up any hope of being able to  question isn't the question whether any court which this court has to defer has let it be a looser the supreme court is the only one we have to defer to it said we have an unflattering obligation our court has continued to say it has an unflagging obligation there's no other authority can make it any looser i agree and i think that there's been mission creep across the board at the district court level at the circuit level and it's overdue for some  cases that just kelly say that you have a seventh circuit test that has twelve factors you have another circuit test and factors in the supreme court as limited to other factors i thought that also you point out in your brief the supreme court was quite clear about what abuse of discretion means here and in a in a way that it doesn't usually say that is to say that the district court has discretion is not to say the decision is unreviewable such discretion must be exercised on the relevant litigation meant in that context and it only meant in the context of what colorado invision it was a comprehensive state court he or some counterbalancing state interest and that's where the judge government already which would be the one that would assert the vital government interest hadn't has it made that can we talk for a minute about the progress of the cases so as i understand it when like when lost the building an hour had to pay to see water sorry had to pay for the demolition and people are fighting about who is at fault for that unfortunate those defendants who by the way are not in our edge has raised both types of claims in both well we that's correct judge and when we had to because under the gillis case which i didn't emphasize enough  whether you're in superior court or district court or anywhere else you have to raise all of those claims together precisely because if it all is they all arise out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the demolition of the building but it's true that d c has a compulsory kind of playing a little bit more nuance that you just described but what happened here is that during the time of the first final the of discovery initially in that case and in and get it going by memory april of two thousand and sixteen great because they were just positive motions and that's their discovery was not lifted until  has this train left the station if we're two and a half years into discovery in the superior court case assuming it's been ongoing what what's the point did in the state court case and the judge was receptive to that and we said ok you see waters negligence came claims that ship has left the train they go forward they prove those cases we defend them but it is federal claims things that go involve them nor are we involve so you start so you could seek a stay of the federal claims in subpoena absolutely which we tried to do and this is one of the reasons why judge kelly committed earlier because then why would crore sort of in the reverse colorado river be more likely to say oh the mirror the mirror pendency of parallel claims is enough to make us stay right i  the court looked as the key date the motion just did not look at what happened to the supreme court several years by the time the case got report several years later and here the motion to dismiss was file because by the time it gets to this court given the length of time it takes to get this court very likely that things were already going to have seen you know continued for another year or two and if that were the rule we'd end up with f up our our responsibility to review whether colorado river decisions are correct would be eliminated because there would be as they say facts on the ground well i'm busy this case judge i don't  state in every case that seemed to me to undermine the whole point of colorado river it it most certainly would which is why i suggested i think one of fifty eight the motion discovery on the due process issue we have served discovery requests to ask for all the communications in this weird court yes yes and we have done some requests for admissions to get the district to negligence cases more in court the superior court and federal claims over here in the federal court and you know what are we talking about but that's not the case what happened here is it started out as a that's the first threshold requirement of colorado river there be parallel cases going on in both courts that's what the supreme at that's what that section of the supreme court's opinion i just read is about cases proceed in both courts it can't be enough maybe maybe you don't like it i understand maybe seems unfair and you can bring the same case in another war but that's that's a system we have we have federal courts and we have state courts so this is not enough this is going to happen in every single case in which colorado reverse claims that no your honor right with respect i disagree it in the typical case were court finds that the claims are the same perhaps with different areas you generally have we have never affirmed a colorado river case and neither has been one of the colorado river and the colorado river when they said something was exceptional railroad narrow and just all the cases that disparate words  highly unusual all of those words those don't seem to me to apply in the same way i understand maybe this isn't garden variety but there is a broad spectrum between garden variety on one side and rare exceptional narrow on the other side if i were you just just had to find what the court said was exceptional and the only case that a court with power over us as ever decide involve thousands of separate issues which would have to be decided piecemeal in state court and the federal statute mccarran act which wanted all those issues to be decided in state court we if this is just a practical judgment about efficient use of judicial resources but it's a much obviously a much tougher argument the standard is something like what the chief judge has been suggesting to you and i i'm having a hard time seeing as as much sense as it makes to say well the superior court case was much farther along there could be duplication of effort or an inconsistent judgments all of that seems to me will happen in virtually every case where they're parallel proceedings so to me if you're writing about truly exceptional it has to be because there's something special about state law who seems to be part of your case and there's nothing more that is not this case where you have all of these claims and the federal claims by the way cannot be determined without all of the state court issues involved because the essence of the federal claim when you look at them is that d c watered knew something about the engineering and misrepresented the engineering reports to d c our ray and there was a conspiracy as a result of that and that led to all these state law of what entitlements people have under state law and sometimes state wise enough as judge william said so that they have it doesn't get them there expectations under state law etc every time the supreme court decides a picking without due process it has to evaluate say love that's the breck that i mean that is the garden variety job we do whenever we do state law due process cases fair enough but here's the difference in this case is it's not enough to question here is who have the rights and then the person claiming that their rights were taken and that person have those rights is what we do all the time in the due process case sometimes it's hard to figure out when they have the right sometimes it's not hard but being one in april of twenty seventeen decides to do the same things in a federal action by which time the trains use judge passes phrase which is very apt to train had left the station there had been extensive work on the case motions on these critical issues you know the parties are at that point the experts have not been disclosed because the parties are working them up based on decisions that are made in that case and you know so that the whole thing has moved and we're now talking about throwing an absolutely you know identical but it extraordinarily complicated extraordinarily expensive case again but under entirely different sets of that motion was jury or from the side lies so now it will go into federal court and say yeah well now we get to change this around to get a second bite at the apple because we weren't technically the party you raised judicata doesn't apply again something very unique to this court told us why they did it in colorado river thousands of individual cases about water rights in colorado and in the west far away from where the case was going to be litigated which is not the case here piecemeal  thousands of pieces which is not going to happen here a comprehensive one right system both the state and the federal government which both wanted done in the state courts he said why it's at the supreme court if it wanted to say we're we're talking about a statute or we're talking about a long way from recording house if you the minute it's not a thousand separate lawsuits it's a thousand people who all they have to do is it show their priority to water right which means they tender a piece of paper that said i here's my evidence and i first started drawing irrigation water in june fifth one thousand nine hundred eighty two that's all there is to it here we have extraordinarily complex claims that with all respect there and you're suggesting we now try this again consider sure i'm not suggesting that everybody has to start at square one there is certainly the documents that are produced don't work into something else certain of the expert opinions on the engineering could be used so i understand that but the political thing is certain of the critical rulings in terms of what isn't isn't going to be allowed in the superior court case could be very different from what is and isn't going to be allowed in this case that's now going on in the federal case and why should you know what this supreme court was was talking  water rights that we're going to allow to in violation of rule one this huge morph to have two cases which could be decided maybe with some of the same evidence and maybe some of the same experts but where you have the same claims and the same  firm for you we would be going what the supreme court and what this court has done we may not be going beyond what other circuits have done so when it what are your best high reverses beloit is a case that from federal claims seem to me highly parallel except maybe the rico count which is the predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud and i didn't see that there were fraud counts in the superior court action is that right while they were labeled as such but is terror itself makes clear the labels were important in what happened in the superior court cases but all these lawyers say the d c water in d c are a conspired by d c sending letters   think about what happens if this cases from you have a federal judge saying that statutory interpretation is an exceptional duty exceptionally important that you have a saying that the public duty talk to him which has been leading this case for twenty years and the probability of three somewhere is an exceptional circumstance and then you have a judge saying that he couldn't find any cases on when i'm due process in the real question is when you raise which is whether this is an issue that we should put a stop to but i don't think you need to worry about the elections and i do i didn't need to cast aspersion judge or go a little wrong with him what i meant to say was that he didn't