2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-27-2003 

# T imoney v . U pp e r M e r ion T

wp P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t 02-2096

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Timoney v

. U ppe r M e r ion T

wp " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 529. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/529NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No: 02-2096/2228

____________ THO MA S J. TIMONE Y, ESQU IRE, As Receiver for the HANK IN FAMILY PA RTNERSH IP; REALEN VALLEY FORGE G REENES A SSOCIATES, Appellant s (No. 02-2096)

v. UPPER M ERION TOW NSHIP; THE BO ARD O F SUPERVISORS O F UPPER M ERION TOW NSHIP; THE UPPER MERI ON TOWNSHIP ZONI NG HEARING BOARD
THO MA S J. TIMONE Y, ESQU IRE, As Receiver for the HANK IN FAMILY PA RTNERSH IP; REALEN VALLEY FOR GE GREENES ASSOCIATES

v. UPPER M ERION TOW NSHIP; THE BO ARD O F SUPERVISORS O F UPPER M ERION TOW NSHIP; THE UP PER MERI ON TOWNSHI P ZONI NG HEARI NG BOARD, Appellant s ( No: 02-2228)
App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Civi l Action No. 01-cv-01622) Distri ct Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

____________________1 Tho mas J. Tim oney, E squire , is the ap poin ted rec eiver f or the H ankin Fam ily

Partner ship. Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a) on March 7, 2003 Be for e:R OT H, B AR RY AN D F UE NT ES , Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led: May 27, 2003)

O P I N I O N

RO TH , Circuit

Judge : This action ari ses from a di spute over zoning of undevel oped land i n Upper M erion T ow nship , Penn sylvania. A ppella nt land ow ners, the Ha nkin Fam ily Partners hip and Realen Vall ey For ge Greenes Associ ates, seek damages and i njuncti ve reli ef pursuant to 42 U.S .C. § 1 983 from Up per M erion T ow nship , its Boa rd of Sup erviso rs, and its Zon ing H earing Bo ard, fo r frustra ting ap pellan ts’ repe ated a ttemp ts to rezo ne the ir agricu ltural pro perty for c om merc ial dev elopm ent. 1 The property has been operated as a golf cours e since t

he 1920s, and t

he Hankin FamilyPartner ship began i ts re quests f or rezoning i n 1967. Realen formal lychall enged the agricult ural zoni ng of the prope rtyin 1997. The Zoning Board rej ected the chall enge in 1999, and a state court appeal fol lowed. The Zoning Board’s dec isi on was affirmed bythe Court of Common Pleas on December 1, 200 0. R eale n su bse que ntly ap pea led to the C om mo nw ealth Co urt o f Pe nns ylvan ia.2 On June 4, 2002, t he Commonw ealth Court affi rmed the Court of Common Pleas with regard to Realen’ s clai ms. On July3, 2002, Real en fil ed a Peti tion for Allowance of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
. Hankin then petiti oned for the appointment of a Board of View with the Court of Co mm on P leas , see kin g co mp ens ation for inv erse con dem natio n. While thes e state acti ons were pending, both appel lant l andowners fil ed a complaint

in the Dis tri ct Court of the East ern District

of Pennsy lvania , al leging e qual protect ion and subst antiveand procedura l due proce ss viol ations as well as unjust takings claims. 2 On June 8, 2001, appel lees moved to dis miss the c ase un der Fe d. R. Civi l P. 12(b)(6) on grounds inc luding res jud icata and coll atera l est oppel. In the al ternat ive, App ellees requested, un der Yo ung er v. H arris , 401 U.S. 37 ( 1971) and Railroad C omm ’n of T exa s v. P ullm an C o., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) , that the Dis tri ct Court abstai n from judici al action in t

he case pendi ng the dis position of rel ated st ate court actions, so as not to in te rf er e wi thth e s tate co ur t l it ig atio n or

de ci de unc ertainis su es of st at e l aw. On March 22, 2002, t

he District Court

denied the 12(b)( 6) motion and sua sp onte granted a stayof the cas e pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Unite d States , 424 U .S. 800 (197 6), pending the disposition of the state court proceedings. On April 25, 2002, the landowners ti mely appealed, requesting revi ew of the District Cou rt’s abstention und er Colorado River . Appell ants al lege that theDistri ct Court erred in det ermining t hat thefederaland state court a ctions are para llelproceedi ngs warranti ng abstention and that the c ourt abus ed its discr etion i n abstai ning from judi cialdecisi on-making becaus e the cas e did not rise t o the le vel of exceptional c ircumst ances

re qu ire d b y Colorado River . On May 3, 2002, the Township ti mely c ross- appealed t he Distric t Cou rt’s den ial of its m otion to dism iss. Ap pellan ts subs eque ntly filed a m otion to dismis s the cr oss-appea l for l ack of appell ate j urisdi ction, on the ground t hat revi ew of the rulin g on interloc utory issue s wo uld b e an im prop er exe rcise o f pen dent p arty juri sdiction. The D istrict Court had jurisdiction p ursuant to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1331 and 13 43(a)(3), since t his ci vil ac tion al leges a vi olati on of due process under the Ci vil Right s Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have juris dicti on to revi ew the District Court ’s March 22, 2002 or der under both 28 U.S. C. § 1291, as t he order i s finaland appealabl e, and the coll atera l order doctri ne, which al lows appell ate re view of an order s tay ing a feder al action under Colorado River
. Quackenbush v. Alls tateIns. Co. , 517 U.S. 706, 712-13 (1996) (“[U ]nlike o ther stay ord ers, w hich m ight rea dily be rec onsid ered b y the district co urt, abstention-based stay

orders of this [ Colorado River ] ilk are ‘conclusive’ b ecause the y are the practical equiv alent of an o rder dismissing th e case.”). In addres sing the merit s of thi s case, we must conduct a de novo review of the District Cou rt’s finding that the co ncurrent fed eral and state cou rt proceeding s are “paral lel. ” Ryan v. J ohnson , 115 F.3d 193, 196 (3d Cir. 1997). I f the proc eedings are not parall el, abstention is inappropriate . If t he proceedi ngs are par alle l, we must de termine whether the District Court abused its discreti on in concluding that the present case involved “ exception al circumstanc es” und er Colorado River , allow ing abs tenti on. Id.The fede ral and state pro ceed ings in this cas e are p arallel. C ases a re para llel if

they invo lve the sam e partie s and “sub stantially iden tical” cla ims, raisin g “ne arly iden tical a llega tion s an d iss ues ”. Trent v. Dial Med. of Fla. , Inc. , 33 F.3d 217, 223 (3d Cir. 1994 ) (overruled in p art on other gro unds). A ppellants allege that the D istrict Court erred b y finding that the §19 83 cla ims b efore it and th e La nd U se A ppea l and S tate Ta kin gs A ction we re “d upl icativ e,” ra ther than “pa ralle l.” A ppe llant s’ B r. at 1 5. Regardless of the l anguage used bythe Dist rict Court, we agre e that

the same parties and und erlying claim s ab out land use and just c om pen satio n ar e inv olv ed. It i s not cl ear, however , whether t he present

case invol ved “excepti onal circumstan ces” und er Colorado River , warranting abstention. The relevant factor s that the Dist rict Court must cons ider wit h regard to the exceptional c ircumst ance inqui ry are: (1) which court fir st ass umed juris dicti on over property ; (2) the inconveni ence of the fe deral f orum; (3) the desi rabil ity of avoidi ng piecemeal litigati on; (4) the order in which jurisdi ction was obt ained; (5) wh ether f edera l or state la w c ontro ls; and ( 6) w hethe r the state cour t will ade qua tely pro tect th e inte rests of th e pa rties. Sprin g Ci tyCorp. v. Amer ic an Bl dgs . Co ., 193 F. 3d 165, 171 (3d Cir . 1999). The Distri ct Co urt add ressed sum marily at b est on ly three of the six f actors , and th us im prov idently granted Colorado River abs tenti on. Hankin FamilyPartner ship v. Upper Merion Tow nship , No. 01-1622, 2002 U.S. Dist . LEXIS 4987, at *1, 29-31 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2002) (di scussi ng piecemeallitigati on; the order in which j urisdi ction was obt ained; and conf usion over the ef fect o f fed eral fa ctual d eterm ination s on iss ues u nreso lved in state
cou rt, va gue ly imp licatin g th e qu estio n of wh ethe r fed eral o r state law con trols ).We will vacat e the Dist rict Court’s March 22, 2002 order st ayi ng the action and remand thi s matter

to the Dis tri ct Court f

or adequat e consider ation unde r the el ements of Colorado River
. Appellees’ cross- appeal i s dismi ssed for l ack of appell ate j urisdi ction, as it is not ne cessa ry to ensu re me aning ful rev iew o f an a ppea lable o rder, no r doe s it oth erw ise c om pel e xer cise of p end ent ju risdi ction
. See E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. Rhone Pou lenc Fiber and Resins Assocs. , 269 F.3d 187, 203 (3d Cir. 200 1).

TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing Opinion.
By the C ourt,

/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge