Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00101/USCOURTS-alnd-5_15-cv-00101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

CRETA MAY DANIEL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CULLMAN COUNTY COURT 

REFERRAL, LLC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number

 5:15-cv-00101-AKK

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The court has for consideration Cullman County Court Referral, LLC

(“CCCR”), Cynthia Keller, and Lisa Sharpton’s (“Defendants”) motion to stay or 

dismiss the underlying suit, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement, doc. 

7, which is fully briefed and ripe for review, docs. 13, 14, 15. Defendants contend, 

inter alia, that, pursuant to the abstention doctrine laid out in Colorado River 

Water Conservation District, et al., v. United States, et al., considerations of 

“[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources 

and comprehensive disposition of litigation” suggest that abstention is appropriate 

here. 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). The court agrees with Defendants and, in light of 

the parallel state case pending in the Circuit Court of Cullman County, Jane Doe v. 

1

FILED

 2015 Jun-08 AM 09:41

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 10
Cynthia Keller, et al., CV-2014-900448 (Al. Cir. Ct. 2014) (hereinafter Jane Doe), 

dismisses this case without prejudice.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs’ allegations are relatively straightforward. In a nutshell, Defendant 

Winfred Eugene Vance, a CCCR employee, subjected Plaintiffs, who are all 

criminal defendants undergoing mandatory drug and alcohol rehabilitation at 

CCCR, to sexual abuse, extortion, coercion, and other forms of misconduct. Docs. 

1 at ¶¶ 23, 40-41; 7-1 at ¶¶ 27-31. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants Lisa

Sharpton and Cynthia Keller, owners of CCCR, knew about Vance’s misconduct 

but failed to take preventative measures. Docs. 1 at ¶¶ 42-43, 48; 7-1 at ¶¶ 31-37. 

As a result, Plaintiffs filed a 19 count lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cullman 

County on December 18, 2014, claiming that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, and committed state law torts, including negligence, assault, conspiracy, 

false imprisonment / malicious prosecution, negligent and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, and corporate liability doctrine / non-delegable duty. See doc. 

7-1. Approximately one month later, Plaintiffs filed a 19 count lawsuit in this 

court, in which they also claim Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and, 

generally, committed the same torts identified in the complaint filed in state court.

See doc. 1.

2

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 10
II. Analysis

Defendants contend that the court should dismiss this lawsuit because the 

circumstances surrounding these parallel lawsuits favor Colorado River abstention. 

See 424 U.S. at 817-27. “Generally, as between state and federal courts, the rule is 

that the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning 

the same matter in the federal courts [because] federal courts have a ‘virtually 

unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them.’” Colorado 

River, 424 U.S. at 817. Consequently, “federal courts can abstain to avoid 

duplicative litigation with state courts only in ‘exceptional’ circumstances.” 

Ambrosia Coal and Const. Co. v. Pages Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1328 (11th Cir. 

2004) (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817) (hereinafter “Ambrosia Coal”). 

Although there is no “bright-line test,” the Eleventh Circuit has distilled six factors 

from Colorado River that courts should weigh to determine whether circumstances 

favor abstention: (1) whether one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction over 

property, (2) the relative inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) the potential for 

piecemeal litigation, (4) the order in which the fora obtained jurisdiction, (5) 

whether state or federal law will be applied, and (6) the adequacy of the state court 

to protect the parties’ rights. Ambrosia, 368 F.3d at 1331. “No one factor is 

necessarily determinative . . . [and] [t]he weight to be given any one factor may 

3

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 10
vary greatly from case to case. . . .” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury 

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1983). 

However, before addressing these factors, the court must make a threshold 

determination of whether these two proceedings are parallel. Specifically, the court 

must first ascertain whether the proceedings “involve substantially the same parties 

and substantially the same issues.” Ambrosia, 368 F.3d at 1330. As to the first 

query, the court notes that the parties to the two lawsuits are slightly different.

1

Still, this discrepancy is not fatal to Defendants’ motion because, if it were, 

“parties could avoid the doctrine of Colorado River by the simple expedient of 

naming additional parties.” Interstate Material Corp. v. City of Chicago, 847 F.2d 

1285, 1288 (7th Cir. 1988), cited with approval in Ambrosia, 368 F.3d at 1330.

Next, with respect to the second query, the alleged facts underlying each lawsuit 

are virtually identical. Compare doc. 1 at 15-31 with doc. 7-1 at 4-8. Indeed,

Plaintiffs raise § 1983 claims and state law tort claims in both lawsuits that are 

similar in scope and form, and the majority of their claims encompass the same or 

similar legal elements. Compare doc. 1 at 32-76 with doc. 7-1 at 8-30. Put simply,

1 The federal lawsuit includes Whitney Bates and Jordan Wilson as additional 

Plaintiffs, and the state lawsuit includes “[a]ll other county drug courts within the 

boundaries of the state of Alabama” as additional defendants. Compare doc. doc. 1 

at 1 with doc. 7-1 at 1. Otherwise, the two lawsuits share the same Plaintiffs and

Defendants. Id.

4

 

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 4 of 10
Plaintiffs have filed the same lawsuit in state and federal court. For this reason, the

two lawsuits are parallel for purposes of the Colorado River analysis.

The court turns now to the relevant Colorado River factors,2 and, for the 

reasons listed below, finds that the circumstances surrounding this lawsuit favor 

abstention.

1. The Circuit Court of Cullman County is the More Convenient Forum

The convenience factor “focus[es] primarily on the physical proximity of the 

federal forum to the evidence and witnesses . . .” Ambrosia, 368 F.3d at 1332 

(citing Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 885 (11th 

Cir. 1990)). Defendants contend that the Circuit Court of Cullman County is a

more convenient forum because it is geographically closer to witnesses and 

evidence, and that the number of parties to this lawsuit would result in significant

expenses for the parties to litigate the matter in this court.

3 See doc. 7 at 9 (stating 

that “nearly all of the defendants and plaintiffs are domiciled in Cullman County 

[and] any third party witnesses are expected to reside in Cullman County.”).

Indeed, the relevant events occurred exclusively in Cullman, Alabama, which is 

2 Only five factors are relevant here. The first factor, i.e. whether one of the two

courts has already assumed jurisdiction over property, see Ambrosia, 368 F.3d at 

1320, is inapplicable because there are no property interests at stake in this 

litigation. See, e.g. Maharaj v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 432 F.3d 1292, 

1306 (11th Cir. 2005). 

3 Plaintiffs do not dispute this contention. See doc. 13. 

5

 

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 5 of 10
approximately fifty miles from this court’s seat in Birmingham, Alabama. See doc. 

1 at 15-31; doc. 7-1 at 4-8. Although Cullman and Birmingham are linked by 

Interstate 65, there is a general lack of public transportation between the two cities

that will adversely impact individuals who do not own an automobile. This fact, 

when paired with the financial costs and the time that litigants and witnesses would

have to spend travelling to Birmingham, increases the relative inconvenience of 

litigating this matter here. Considering these circumstances holistically, the court 

finds that the Circuit Court of Cullman County, with its close proximity to the 

evidence, witnesses, and litigants, is clearly a more convenient forum.

2. Parallel Proceedings Will Result in Piecemeal Litigation

The piecemeal litigation factor “does not favor abstention unless the 

circumstances enveloping th[ese] cases will likely lead to piecemeal litigation that 

is abnormally excessive or deleterious.” Ambrosia, 368 F.3d at 1333. In other 

words, parallel litigation that is “inevitably piecemeal[,]” – i.e. where parties 

operate under distinctive legal frameworks and must offer differing evidence and 

testimony – militate against abstention. Jackson-Platts v. General Elec. Capital 

Corp., 727 F.3d 1127, 1142 (11th Cir. 2013). Conversely, parallel litigation with

identical factual allegations in which plaintiffs assert virtually identical legal 

claims encompassing the same elements and burdens of proof favors abstention 

because the litigants and the court are exposed to unnecessary inconvenience,

6

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 6 of 10
expense, and the danger of needless duplication of effort. See, e.g. Amason and 

Assocs. v. Columbus Land Development, LLC, No. 7:12-cv-02459-JHE, 2014 WL 

467509 *12 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 4, 2014); see also Sides v. Simmons, No. 7-cv-80347, 

2007 WL 3344405 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2007); Bosdorf v. Beach, 79 F.Supp. 

1337, 1344 (S.D. Fla. 1999); Benetton Servs. Corp. v. Benedot, Inc. 758 F. Supp. 

685 (N.D. Ala. 1991). This is precisely the case here where the federal and state 

complaints share fourteen counts, compare doc. 1 at 32-76 with doc. 7-1 at 8-30, 

and parallel litigation would result in the danger of conflicting obligations that the 

Colorado River doctrine seeks to avoid. While there are five federal claims that are 

not included in the state lawsuit, they either share the same elements and standards 

of proof or can otherwise be fully adjudicated in state court.

4 See generally 

Jefferson County v. Acker, 210 F.3d 1317, 1318 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2000); Am. Mfrs. 

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Assoc., 743 F.2d 1519, 1524-25 (11th 

Cir. 1984). Moreover, prosecution of the parallel lawsuits would not be “inevitably 

piecemeal” in light of the absence of federal claims that would require different 

4 The federal claims that are not included in the state lawsuit are § 1983 claims for

refusing or neglect to prevent, obstruction of justice and intimidating a party or 

witness, and conspiracy, § 1985 deprivation of rights or privileges, and a § 1988

claim for attorneys and expert fees. Compare doc. 1 at 32-76 with doc. 7-1 at 8-30. 

However, the issues that these causes of action raise can be fully adjudicated by the 

Cullman County Circuit Court because Plaintiffs raise claims in that lawsuit for 

negligence and gross negligence, negligent hiring, training, supervision and 

retention of employees, extortion, abuse of process, and conspiracy. See doc. 7-1 at 

8-30. 

7

 

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 7 of 10
types of “law, evidence, and testimony” than the claims in the state court 

proceeding. See Jackson-Platts, 727 F.3d at 1142. Consequently, because the two 

lawsuits are essentially identical, it is almost certain that any resolution of the state 

lawsuit will be dispositive of the federal lawsuit, leading to “wasteful, duplicative 

adjudication the abstention doctrine was created to prevent.” Allied Machinery 

Service, Inc., v. Caterpillar Inc., 841 F. Supp. 406, 408 (S. D. Fla. 1993). In short, 

the burdens of litigating both cases simultaneously outweigh any possible benefit. 

For that reason, the court finds that the potential for piecemeal litigation weighs in 

favor of abstention.

3. The Order of Filing and the Progress of the Respective Cases Tilts in 

Favor of Abstention

Although the temporal factor considers “the order in which jurisdiction was 

obtained by the concurrent forums[,]” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 1247, it “should 

not be measured exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms 

of how much progress has been made in the two actions[,]” Moses H. Cone, 460 

U.S. at 21; see also Ambrosia Coal, 338 F.3d at 1333. Here, the Cullman County 

Circuit Court case, which Plaintiffs filed a month before this case, see docs. 1 at 1; 

7-1 at 1, has progressed further than this case. Among other things, the parties in 

the state litigation have made pre-discovery filings, Plaintiffs have filed two 

amended complaints, and there are pending motions for a protective order, a stay

of the proceedings, and to dismiss. Jane Doe at docs. 9, 33, 41-43, 52, 72, 73, 75, 

8

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 8 of 10
81, 84 In contrast, this case has not made any significant progress and is currently 

stayed pending the outcome of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In fact, the parties 

cannot proceed to their Rule 26 meeting or commence discovery until after the 

court rules on this pending motion. As is evident, the state litigation is more 

developed than the federal litigation. Therefore, the temporal factor weighs in 

favor of abstention.

4. Both Federal and State Law Govern

The court next considers whether federal or state law applies. Although 

Defendants contend that “the federal court action involves at least nine claims that 

are controlled by Alabama state law,” doc. 7 at 13, the court notes that the state 

claims do not involve “complex questions of state law that a state court might be 

best suited to resolve.” See Ambrosia, 368 F.3d at 1334. Moreover, Plaintiffs also

assert twelve federal claims that this court, like the state law claims, is equally well 

suited to adjudicate. Therefore, because the court extends a heavy bias in favor of 

exercising jurisdiction when weighing the Colorado River factors, see id. at 1332,

the court finds that this factor weighs in favor of exercising jurisdiction. 

5. Federal and State Courts can Adequately Protect the Parties’ Rights

The final Colorado River factor “only weigh[s] in favor or against abstention 

when one of the fora is inadequate to protect a party’s rights.” Id.at 1333. As 

9

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 9 of 10
Defendants concede, both the state and federal courts can adequately protect the 

parties’ rights. Consequently, this factor is neutral.

III. Conclusion

Although three of the five relevant Colorado River factors weigh in favor of 

abstention, the court is particularly persuaded by the fact that the events underlying 

the parallel lawsuits occurred in Cullman County, and the litigants and witnesses 

all purportedly reside there. Conversely, Plaintiffs have failed to indicate why the 

adjudication of an essentially identical lawsuit in a court that is fifty miles away 

from the evidence, witnesses, and litigants is necessary in light of the fact that the 

Circuit Court of Cullman County is fully competent to adjudicate this matter in its 

totality. For these reasons, the court abstains from exercising jurisdiction and

DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DONE the 8th day of June, 2015.

 

_________________________________

ABDUL K. KALLON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

Case 5:15-cv-00101-AKK Document 20 Filed 06/08/15 Page 10 of 10