*The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3603

___________

Windsong Enterprises, Inc., *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the Unites States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Eden Isle Corporation; Donald A. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Tollefson, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 10, 2000

Filed: April 19, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eden Isle Corporation owns a planned residential community called the Eden Isle

Subdivision in Cleburne County, Arkansas. After Windsong Enterprises, Inc. bought

property in the subdivision, Windsong sought to replat and subdivide the property

without the approval of a majority of the subdivision's landowners. In April 1998 Eden

Isle filed a lawsuit in Arkansas state court to prevent Windsong from doing so, alleging
-2-

Windsong's actions violated the terms of the Plat and Bill of Assurance. (Eden Isle

later added Donald A. Tollefson, Eden Isle's president, as a plaintiff.) In January 1999

Windsong filed an answer and counterclaim. Nevertheless, Windsong filed this federal

court action raising the same claims as in its state court counterclaim about two weeks

later. Eden Isle asked the federal district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction

underColorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).

The district court evaluated the Colorado River factors that determine the existence of

exceptional circumstances justifying abstention, and decided to abstain. The district

court thus stayed this federal action pending resolution of the state court proceeding,

and Windsong appeals. We review the district court's abstention-based stay for abuse

of discretion. See Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Arkansas Elec. Coops., Inc., 48

F.3d 294, 296-97 (8th Cir. 1995). 

A court considering abstention under Colorado River must evaluate several

factors: (1) whether there is property over which one court has established jurisdiction;

(2) whether the federal forum is inconvenient; (3) whether maintaining separate actions

may result in piecemeal litigation; (4) whether one case has priority, especially in terms

of relative progress; (5) whether state or federal law controls; and (6) whether the state

forum is adequate to protect the federal plaintiff's rights. See id. at 297. The district

court concluded: (1) although both cases involve Windsong's property, the first factor

did not weight in favor of either position; (2) even though the state courthouse in

Cleburne County is seventy miles from the federal courthouse in Little Rock,

inconvenience of the federal forum is not a significant factor since counsel for both

parties reside in Little Rock; (3) the interest in avoiding piecemeal litigation weighs

heavily in favor of abstention, since the state court and federal court allegations were

the same; (4) the priority of the cases favors abstention, since the state court was filed

first, some discovery had been completed, and the state court had entertained various

dispositive motions and hearings; (5) although Windsong filed the federal action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law controls and thus favors abstention because the issues

involve Windsong's rights as a property owner as interpreted in the Bill of Assurance
-3-

and contract; and (6) the state forum would probably be adequate to protect Windsong's

rights. Windsong contends the district court misapplied these factors. Having carefully

reviewed the matter, we disagree. Further, courts are to apply the Colorado River

factors in a practical manner to advance the clear federal policy of avoiding piecemeal

adjudication, see id., and the district court did so in this case. We simply cannot say

the district court abused its discretion in staying the federal court action. We thus

affirm the district court's order. Because the information is unnecessary to our decision,

we deny Eden Isle's motion to supplement the record with documents showing

Windsong's actions in the state court proceeding after Windsong filed its federal notice

of appeal. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.