Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06963/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06963-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY GUILLORY and FELISE

GUILLORY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WFS FINANCIAL, INC. et al,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06963 JSW

ORDER RE: ABSTENTION

DOCTRINE AND SETTING

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

Now before the Court is the briefing submitted by the parties on the issue whether the

Court should dismiss this matter on the basis of abstention. The Court sua sponte required the

parties to submit briefing on the issue and set this matter for hearing on May 25, 2007 at 9:00

a.m. Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal authority, and the record in this

case, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ.

L.R. 7-1(b). The Court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss the matter and VACATES

the hearing set for May 25, 2007.

A district court must abstain from exercising its jurisdiction where there is a “federal

constitutional issue that might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a state court

determination of pertinent state law.” County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S.

185, 189 (1959). The district court must also abstain where it is presented with complex

questions of state law bearing on unsettled policy. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of

Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 33 (1959). Finally, abstention is mandatory where federal jurisdiction

is invoked to restrain state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). None 

Case 3:06-cv-06963-JSW Document 40 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of the three scenarios giving rise to mandatory abstention is present here. The Court is not

required to abstain.

A district court has discretion under the doctrine of abstention to “decline to exercise or

postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United

States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976). 

The doctrine of abstention . . . is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the

duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. 

Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this doctrine

only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to repair to

the State court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.

Id. (citing County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188-89 (1959)). 

Abstention rests on “considerations of proper constitutional adjudication and regard for

federal-state relations.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817.

Under the Colorado River doctrine, if federal and state courts have concurrent

jurisdiction over a matter, the federal court may stay or dismiss its suit due to the presence of a

concurrent state proceeding. Id. at 818. Courts weigh several factors when determining

whether to stay or dismiss an action under Colorado River: (1) whether a court has assumed

jurisdiction over a res, (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) the desirability of

avoiding piecemeal litigation, and (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the

concurrent forums. Id. at 818. In Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,

the Supreme Court articulated two more considerations: (5) whether state or federal law

provides the rule of decision on the merits, and (6) whether the state proceeding is adequate to

protect the parties’ rights. 460 U.S. 1, 23, 26 (1983). Dismissal under the Colorado River

doctrine is warranted only under “exceptional” circumstances, and courts have uniformly

acknowledged “the virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the

jurisdiction given them.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817-18 (citations omitted). 

Applying the relevant discretionary factors, the Court agrees with the parties, and finds

that there is no cause to exercise its discretion to abstain in this matter. The Court does,

however, encourage the parties to seek removal and consolidation or dismissal of the related

pending state court action. 

Case 3:06-cv-06963-JSW Document 40 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In addition, the Court sets a further case management conference for June 1, 2007 at

1:30 p.m.. The parties’ joint case management statement, with a complete discovery plan and

all required proposed dates, is due to be filed by no later than May 25, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06963-JSW Document 40 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 3