FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1648 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-21931 -CV -KMM LISA, S.A. a Pana m an ia n c or

por at ion , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us DIONISIO GUTIERREZ MAYORGA, JUAN J OSE GUTIERREZ MAYORGA, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 8, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

In this interlocutory

appeal, Lisa, S. A. , c hallenges the decision of the district
co urt de ny ing it s m oti on t o va ca te astay of the pr oc ee din gs. W e re ve rs e an d r em an d. InF eb ru ar

y 199 9, L isa

f ile d asta te c our

t a c t i o nin Mi am i- D ad e Co unty , F lor ida against various indiv iduals and corpo rate de f e nd ant s a l l e gi ng that Lisa, a shareholder, h a s b e e n i mp r o p e r l y d e p r i v e do f i t s s h a r e o f

t h e p r o f i t s f r o m a l a r g e - s c a l e , v e rt i c a l l yintegra t ed ch icken productio n operation headqu arter ed in Guatem ala. L isa alleges tha t a sub stanti al portio n of

the f unds r igh tf

ull y be lon gin g to Lisa w er e div er te d to Fl or ida a cc ount s and/ or

use d to pur ch as e as se ts l oc at ed in Fl or ida
. L isa ’ s se co nd
am en de d c om

pla int inc lud es tw o c ount s of

de al ing w ithsto le n pr ope rty in vio la tio n of S ec tio n 81 2. 019, F lor ida

S ta tut es , a co unt se ek ing a co nstru ct ive tr ust ove r re al a nd pe rs ona l pr ope rty

of w hic h L isa

c la im s to be the ri ght fu l ow ne r, an d th e im posi tio n of a n e qui ta ble li enove r al l su chpr ope rty . I n Ju ly of 200 2, L isa

f ile d asim ilar ac tio n in the South ern D istrict of Florida against a larger group of defendants. Lisa’ s federa l
co m pla int ar ise s out of the sa m e ge ne ra l gr ie va nc e as its sta te act io n b ut pr ed om inantl y

se ek s, a m ong oth er

thi ngs, in pe rs ona m

r el ie f unde r Fe de ra l and Fl or id a RIC O. On Oc t ob e r

1 5, 2 00 2, t he d i str i c tc ourti ss ue d a n or de r s t a y i ng t he feder al
ac tio n inde fe re nc e to the sta te a ct ionon the gr ound s of both j udi ci al e cono my

a nd the Co lo ra do Rive r doctrine. See C olora do River W

ater Conservati on Dist. v.3

United States , 424 U
. S. 800 , 96 S
. Ct
. 123 6 ( 1976 ). I n Li sa, S.A. v. D ion isi o G uti erre z M ay orga , N o. 02-16302 (11th Cir. De c. 15, 2 003), th e Defendants argued tha t the stay w as one of

ve ry li m ite d du ratio n, a nd w e he ld tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not abus e its discretion in granting the stay . On July 20, 2004, nearly

two y ears a fter entry of th e st ay order, Lisa filed a m otion to vacate the order granting the stay
. That
m oti on w as de nie d. T his appe al f oll ow ed
. As a t h re s h o l dm at t er , we co n c l u d e t h at we h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n t o h ea r L i s a’s appeal. Reviewpursuant to 28 U .S .C. § 1291 is appropriate in abstentio n-based stay
or de rs b ecause suc h st ay s e ff ec tiv el y put the li tig an t ou t of

f ed er al c ourt. Q uac ke nbus h v

. A lls tat e In s. Co

. , 517 U
. S. 706 , 116 S. Ct . 1 712 (1 996) ; A m . M frs

. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Edward D. Stone, Jr. & Assoc. , 743 F. 2d 15 19, 1522-24 (11th Cir. 1984 ). While we would norm ally be u n ab l e t o reviewa m otion to vacate such an
or de r af te r ha vin g a lr ea dy

a ff irm ed the stay on a ppe al , w e ag re e w ithL isa tha t the district court’ s order deny ing Lisa’ s m otion to vacate the stay represe nts a substanti al alteration of the original stay , providi ng jurisdictional groun ds und er Sto ne f or us t o reviewthe order. The district c ou

r t e r r e d i n c on cluding that the Co lor ado R iv er doctrine provid es gr ound s f or astay in thi s c as e. A s e xpl ai ne d in Colora do River , “ [g ]en er al ly , a s be tw ee n st at e an d fe de ra l co urts, the r ule is tha t ‘ the pe nde nc y

of a n a ct ionin the sta te4

co urt i s no ba r to p ro ce ed ing s c onc er nin g the sa m e m at te r in the F ed er al c ourt havin g j urisdictio n.’ ” Colora do River , 424 U
. S. a t 81 7, 96 S
. Ct
. a t 12 46 ( quot ing M cC le lla n
v. Ca rla nd , 217 U
. S. 268 , 282 , 30 S
. Ct
. 501 , 505 ( 1910 )). R athe r, f ed er al c ourts ha ve a “ vi rtu al ly unf

la gg in g o bl ig at io n . . . to ex erci se th e juri sd ic ti on gi ve n t he m .” Id
. Be ca u s e t he fac ts here do not present the “ exceptional circum stances” w hich
w oul d a llo w the c ourt t o ab st ai n from e xe rc isi ng i ts j ur isd ic tio n inor de r to avoi d dup l i ci t o u s l i t i g at i o n wi t h t h e s t at e c o u rt , i twa s er ro r f o r t h e c o u rt t o d en y Li s a’s
m ot io n o n t ha t g ro un d. Se e A m br os i a C oa l & C on st r. C o. v . P ag é s M

or al es , 368 F. 3d 13 20, 1328 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). W e al so c onc lud e tha t i t w as a n a buse of dis cr et ion fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de ny Lisa’ s m otion to vacate the stay on the groun d of j udicial economy . The dist rict court ini tia lly c ha ra ct er iz ed

the stay or de r as one of lim ite d dur at ion , pe ndi ng r es olu tio n of
ce rt ai n th re shol d is sue s insta te c ourt t ha t m igh t e lim ina te dup lic ito us l iti ga tio n in fe de ra l co urt. “ T hr es hol d iss ue s in cl udi ng for um non c onv en ie ns , failure to state a cl ai m , a nd i ssu es of

pe rs ona l and s ubj ec t m at te r j ur isd ic tio n a ll re m ai n be fo re the state court. The resolution of these issues m ay resolve or m oot iss ues currently before this Court.” (R .4-393 at 2.) H owever , a t the tim e th e d istrict court issued th e order de ny ing L isa ’ s Ju ly

20, 200 4, m oti on t o va cate the stay , the stay or de r ha d be enin ef fe ct f or m or e than tw o y ears , a nd n one of the thr es hol d m at te rs in the sta te a ct ion5

had been finally resolved. The stay , therefore, has proven to be “ im m oderate. ” See Orteg a Tr u

j i l l o v. Conover & Co. C omm uns., I

nc. , 221 F. 3d 12 62, 1264 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). T he de ci sio n of

the dis tr ic t c ourt, de ny ing L isa ’ s m oti on to vac at e the stay is, therefore , R EV ER SE D, and the case is RE MAN DE D to the dist rict court for further pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. REV ERS ED AN D REMA ND ED
.