Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08154/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08154-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc., a

Nevada corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

vs.

C&S Engineers, Inc., a New York

corporation; John and Jane Does I-X; ABC

Corporation I-X; and XYZ Partnerships IX, 

Defendants/Counter-Claimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-8154-PCT-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Remand and/or For Abstention.

(Doc. 22). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. 

BACKGROUND

On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc., a Nevada corporation,

entered into a construction contract with the Town of Springerville, Arizona to resurface the

Springerville Municipal Airport (the “Project”). At some point after starting work on the

Project, Meadow Valley requested that the project be suspended, claiming that the contract

plans, specifications and drawings (the “Design Documents”) were faulty. On September

26, 2011, Meadow Valley filed its Complaint in this action in Apache County Superior Court

against Defendant C&S Engineers, Inc., a New York corporation and the designer for the

Case 3:11-cv-08154-SMM Document 33 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Project. In the Complaint, Meadow Valley brings claims against C&S for negligence,

negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and tortious interference with

contract. 

On October 11, 2011, C&S removed the action to this Court, asserting complete

diversity of the parties as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). On October 19,

2011, C&S filed its Answer and brought counterclaims against Meadow Valley for

negligence and negligent misrepresentation. On November 14, 2011, Meadow Valley filed

its motion to dismiss the counterclaims for failure to state a claim, a motion which is still

pending in this Court. (Doc. 8). 

On February 7, 2012, Meadow Valley filed a complaint in Apache County Superior

Court against the Town for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith (the

“State-court Action”). C&S asserts—and Meadow Valley does not deny—that the Statecourt Action is “based on the same factual allegations” as this action. (Doc. 22 at 3). Given

the existence of the closely related State-court Action, C&S now moves for remand of this

action back to the Apache County Superior Court. (Doc. 22). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts that it is seeking remand pursuant to the Younger and Colorado

River abstention doctrines. (Doc. 22). Plaintiff asserts in response that “[a]lthough remand

may be appropriate at some point,” the Court should first decide Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss

and various discovery disputes between the Parties. (Doc. 26 at 2). 

The Supreme Court has held that“federal courts have the power to dismiss or remand

cases based on abstention principles only where the relief being sought is equitable or

otherwise discretionary.” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 731 (1996)

(emphasis added). In the instant action, Plaintiff seeks “general, consequential, punitive, and

special damages.” (Doc. 1-1, Ex. 1 at 7). The Court therefore lacks power to remand this case

under the Younger or Colorado River abstention doctrines. See Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at

731 (“Because this was a damages action, we conclude that the District Court’s remand order

was [ ] unwarranted.”). 

Case 3:11-cv-08154-SMM Document 33 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Should the Parties decide to stipulate to a remand without conditions, they are directed

to file their stipulation with the Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. See

CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1999) (“Because stipulations serve both

judicial economy and the convenience of the parties, courts will enforce them absent

indications of involuntary or uninformed consent.”); Randy’s Trucking Inc. v. City of Shafter,

2008 WL 5156665, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2008) (“In light of the stipulation to remand, the

parties are directed to submit a proposed order/stipulation to remand this case to the Kern

County Superior Court.”); Bonvillian v. United Auto Credit, 2007 WL 810097, *4 (E.D. Cal.

Mar. 15, 2007) (“Given the uncertainty of jurisdiction in this particular case, under these

particular facts, and in the interest of economy and justice, the parties stipulated to remand

this case to State court for adjudication of the sole state law based claim.”). Should the

Parties not so stipulate, the Court will rule on Meadow Valley’s motion to dismiss and

proceed with this case. See Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 228 (1922). (“Each

court is free to proceed in its own way and in its own time, without reference to the

proceedings in the other court. Whenever a judgment is rendered in one of the courts and

pleaded in the other, the effect of that judgment is to be determined by the application of the

principles of res adjudicata . . .The rule, therefore, has become generally established that .

. . another action for the same cause in another jurisdiction is not precluded.”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remand and/or for

Abstention (Doc. 22) is DENIED.

DATED this 14th day of May, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08154-SMM Document 33 Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 3