Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

 

RABO AGRIFINANCE, a Delaware

Corporation, as Successor in Interest to

RABO AGSERVICES, Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TERRA XXI, LTD., ROBERT WAYNE

VEIGEL, ELLA MARIE WILLIAMS

VEIGEL, VEIGEL FARMS, INC., and

VEIGEL CATTLE COMPANY, 

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-314-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rabo AgriFinance has brought this diversity action to collect the unpaid balance on a farm

loan secured by land in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Defendants have brought this Motion for

Abstention, arguing that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction in favor of another action

pending in state court concerning the same property. Rabo AgriFinance responded, claiming that

abstention would not be appropriate because the two actions involve different loans.

Background

In 1994, Farm Credit Bank, advanced two loans in amounts totaling $3 million to

Defendants, (collectively “the Veigel/Terra XXI entities”) secured by assets of Defendant Terra

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00314-J Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 361
1

 Rabo brought a suit concerning the foreclosure on the same loan in federal district court, Cause

No. 2:05-CV-243. The Court abstained from this case on June 5, 2006.

Page 2 of 4

XXI, including a deed of trust lien on certain properties in Deaf Smith County. Farm Credit Bank

transferred its interest in the loans to First Ag Credit, and on June 23, 2004, First Ag Credit

accelerated the loans after the Veigel/Terra XXI entities defaulted, leaving a total balance of

$2,882,920.24. Subsequent to the default, Plaintiff Rabo AgriFinance purchased First Ag Credit’s

interest in the loans, and sought to collect from the Defendants. When their efforts were

unsuccessful, they brought this diversity action (“Rabo I”) in federal court to collect the balance due.

There is another action currently pending in the 222nd State District Court in Deaf Smith

County, Texas, Cause No. CI-04B-011, that concerns many of the same parties and the same Deaf

Smith County properties, but relates to completely different loans. This state action (“Rabo II”)

relates to a separate inferior lien on the property that was granted to another mortgage company, Ag

Services of America, Inc., in consideration for a series of loans made between 1997 and 1999.1

 The

Plaintiff in this action, Rabo AgriFinance, purchased this second lien on the property, as it had

purchased the first lien, and foreclosed on the property when the Veigel/Terra XXI entities also

defaulted on these loans. The state action was initiated by the Veigel/Terra XXI entities after the

foreclosure in order to declare the foreclosure invalid and wrest title to the properties from Rabo

AgriFinance.

Abstention

The central contention of the Veigel/Terra XXI entities is that the Court should exercise its

discretion to abstain in favor of the action in state court under the principles of Colorado River

Water Conservation District v. United States, 414 U.S. 800, 813 (1976). Colorado River suggests

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00314-J Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 362
2

 The Veigel/Terra XXI entities assert that the Court should follow a different definition of

“parallel.” They contend that the proper rule should be phrased as follows: “If the state court action

would preclude, under the doctrine of res judicata, a subsequent federal court action, then the two actions

are parallel and the Colorado River analysis will be applied.” In support, the Defendants cite a case from

the Northern District of Illinois, Ericksen v. Village of Willow Springs, 876 F.Supp. 951 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 

This is a misstatement of the law followed in the 7th Circuit, and arguably a misrepresentation of the

result in Ericksen itself. See Caminiti & Iatarola, Ltd. v. Behnke, 962 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1992) (stating

the 7th Circuit rule as follows:“A ‘suit is parallel when substantially the same parties are

contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issues in another forum . . . .’”)(citations omitted).

Further, as noted above, it is not the rule in this Circuit.

More importantly, however, even if the Court followed this analysis, its result would not change. 

The parties in this would not be bound by any result in the state case under res judicata or collateral

estoppel, because the two cases do not involve the same legal issues, or even the same loans. Res judicata

bars every claim that was brought or should have been brought in a prior action from being asserted in a

future action. See Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Mississippi, 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1983). However,

Rabo would have been under no compulsion to bring its action on this loan when it was sued in the state

action because the claims arose from completely different transactions. See id. at 560 n.4 (claims arise

from the same “transaction” for res judicata purposes, and therefore should have been brought together, if

they arise from the same “nucleus of operative facts”); see also Howe v. Vaughan, 913 F.2d 1138, 1144

(5th Cir. 1990). Likewise, collateral estoppel would not bar this action because the issues are not

“identical” to any of those in the state action. Stripling v. Jordan Production Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863,

868 (5th Cir. 2000).

Page 3 of 4

that a district court has discretion to abstain when “exceptional circumstances” exist. Id. at 813-14.

However, the Colorado River abstention principles only apply to state and federal proceedings that

are considered “parallel.” Diamond Offshore Co. v. A&B Builders, 302 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir.

2002). The Fifth Circuit has interpreted the term “parallel” rigidly, determining it to meaning

“having the same parties and the same issues.”2 Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Costa Lines Cargo

Servs, Inc., 903 F.2d 352, 360 (5th Cir. 1990); PPG Industries, Inc. v. Continental Oil. Co., 478 F.2d

674, 682 (5th Cir. 1973). 

The Rabo I and II actions cannot be considered parallel. While the parties in the state and

federal actions are similar, the actions involve completely different sets of loans by completely

different companies arising from completely different transactions. The issues bear no relation to

each other save for the fact that the two loans concern the same property. The only passing

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00314-J Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 363
Page 4 of 4

similarity in parties they have is a result of the fact that Rabo AgriFinance purchased both loans

from the unrelated companies that had originally contracted with the Veigel/Terra XXI entities. 

The Defendants also argue that abstention is warranted because the Court could reach a

determination of ownership to the Deaf Smith County Properties that might be in conflict with that

of the state court. Title is not at issue in this litigation - Rabo AgriFinance is simply attempting to

collect on a loan, and has not yet foreclosed on the primary security interest in the Deaf Smith

County properties obtained through these loans.

 The Motion for Abstention is therefore DENIED.

It is SO ORDERED.

Signed this 14th day of June, 2006.

/s/ Mary Lou Robinson 

MARY LOU ROBINSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00314-J Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 364