## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3254 M EA NI T H H U ON, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. J OHNS ON & B ELL, L TD ., etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C7877

—Blan ch e M. Mannin g, Judge .
A RG UE D J UNE 14, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 21, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. M e a ni th Huo n i s a l a wy e r r e pre senting hi m sel fi n thi s a pp eal . A fterhe was fi re d fr om hi s j ob as an as soc i ate atJ ohnson & B el l, he ini ti ate d tw o lawsu i ts aga i nst the fi rm and thr ee ofi ts othe r atto r ne y s. He fi l ed hi s fi r sta ct i o n in s ta te c o ur t, a sse r ting sta te- l aw cl ai m s o fdef am ati on a nd int enti onali nfl i cti on o fe m o ti o na l di st r es s r es ul tingfr o m a l l eg edl y da m ag i ng an n u al p er for m an c e e va lu at ion s. H u on ’s s ec on d su it2 N o. 10

- 3254

w as fi l ed i n federa l co urt afterhis stat e ca se had been d i sm i sse d and w as pend i ng o n appeal

. In hi s federa l su it H u on br ou gh t c laim s u n d er T itle V II, 4 2 U. S
. C. § 20 00 e, a nd 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 1 f o r di sc r i m i na ti o n o n the basi s o f r a c e a nd na t i o na l o r i g i n, a l l e g i ng tha t he was tr ea te d l es s f av o r ab l y tha n whi te e m pl o y ee s be ca us e he di d n ot r ec ei ve the s ame e m pl o y m en t be ne fi ts , a ss i g nm en ts , sala r y , or op p or tu n ity for p ro b at ion be for e h is disc harg e. H uon al so thre w i n a s up ple m en talst ate
law cla i m f orto rt i ous inter fer ence w i th a pros pecti ve eco nom i c advanta ge. The dis tr i ct c ourti ssued a sta y b ase d on the abst enti on d o c t r i ne i n Colorado Rive rWat e rCons e r vat i on D i s t
. v. U ni t e d S ta tes , 424 U
. S. 80 0 ( 1976 ) , r eas oni ng tha t a l l o f H u on’s c l ai m s would be bar re d by r e s j udi ca t a o n c e the j ud g men ti n the s t a t e c a s e b e c a me fi na l

. Huo n ha s a pp eale d fr om thato rder, ar gui ng tha t hi s tw o sui ts w er e no t par al l eland that the di str i ct c ourta b u sed i ts d isc re tio n be c au se n o e x c ep ti o n a l circ u m st an c es j u st ifi ed the sta y. A l though the di str i ct c ourtwas cor re ct to suspect that th er e a re probl em s with H uon’s federa l sui t, i t cho se the wrong re m edy f ortho se probl em s. W e hav e no choi ce but to vac ate and re m and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I H uon l osthi s j ob a t John son & Bel l o n J anuary9, 20 08; shor tl y there after, he fi l ed ad m in i str ati ve charg es w i th the I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fH um an Ri ghts and the Equal Em plo ym en t O pp or tuni ty Com m i ssi on co m pla i ni ng o fN o. 10

- 3254 3

ra ce a nd nati onalo ri gin d i scr i m i nati on. Bef or e those char g e s we r e r e s o l v e d, Huo n fi l e d s ui ti n I l l i no i s st ate cour t a gainst the fi rm a nd thr ee ofi ts att or neys on J anuary8, 20 09 ( the day bef or e th e o ne- yea r sta tute of l i m i tat i ons expir ed f oro ne o fhi s s tat e- l aw cl ai m s)
. H uon al l ege d that the thre e att or neys defa m ed him w h en they m ade f al se sta tem ents about h is w or k duri ng an annual perf or m ance e val uati on that l ate r w as shar ed wi th o th e r p a r tn e r s . T h e s e s t a t e me n t s i n c l u d e d c o mm en ts th at H u on “re q u ire s a h igh er lev el of s u p er vis ion,” th ats o m eo ne o fhi s “e xpe r i en ce s ho ul d b e wor k i ng m or e ind ependentl y, ” a nd thathe ha d “ deadli ne pro bl em s” and w as “incom petent. ” Hu on a l so ass er ted that the a tto rne ys’ sta tem ents const i tuted i ntenti onali nfl i cti o n o f e mot i o na l di s t r e s s a nd tha t J o hn s o n & Be l l , as thei r em ployer, was vi car i ousl y l i abl e forthei r al l ege d m isc on du ct. The defendants m ove d to dism i ss f or f ai l ur e to s ta te a c l ai m a nd a l so r eque st ed th atthe cou rt strike “des ignate d i m m aterial m atte r ” from H uo n’s c om p lain t, n am ely , alle ga tio n s t h at th e a tt or n ey s ra re ly ifever gave H uo n su bsta nt ive w ork to do an d the ass erti o n tha t “J o hns o n & Be l l di sc r i m i na te d a g ains t an d te r m i na te d Huon o n the b as i s o fhi s r ac e, na ti o na l o r i g i n, an d a g e. ” The de fen dan ts c ha r g ed th atthe se a l l eg at i o ns w ere “irr elevan t and ha[d ] not hin g to do w ith H uo n’s c ou n ts for d efa m at ion .” The sta te c ourtgr anted the defendants’ m oti on t o d i s mi s s i n J u l y 2 0 0 9
. I tc o n c l u d e d th a tH u o n ’ s c l a i ms w er e defecti ve because the al l ege dlydef am ato ryst ate
m ents, wh i ch the c ou rtdi d not fi nd to be extr em e o r outr age ous, were op i ni ons prot ecte d by qual i fi ed or4 N o. 10

- 3254

ab s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e . Hu o n a p p e a l e d , and a l mo s tt wo y ea r s l at ertha t ca se a ppar en tly r emai ns pe ndi ngi n the sta te appell ate co urt. On Se ptem ber22, 20 09, the EE OC i ssued H uon a ri ght- tosu e l et te r, an d he f o l l o wed up o n Dec embe r 21 by fi l i ng th e fe d er al a c tio n n ow be for e u s, w h ile h is s ta te su it w a s p e nd i ngo n a pp e a l

. In hi s fe de r a l c o mpl a i nt, Huo n as se r te d c l ai m s o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n b as ed o n r ac e an d na ti o na l o r i g i n, a s wel l a s a st ate-la w cl ai m f o r t o r ti o us i nt e r fe r e nc e wi th a p r o s pe c t i v e b us i ne s s r e l a t i on s hi p. H e n am ed as d efe n d a n t s t h e firm of Joh n so n & B ell, fi rm pre si dent W i l l i am J ohnson, and two ofthe thre e at to rn ey s fro m th e s ta te su it. T h e d efe n d an ts ag ain m ove d to dism i ss b ot h counts f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m , thi s ti m e ar g ui ngtha t H uo n’ s co m pl aintwas l o ng o n c o n c l u s i o n s a n d s h o r t o n f a c t s . Al t e r n a t i v e l y , t he defen dan ts move d t o s ta y the s ta te-law cl ai m unde r the C o lo rad o R iver abst enti on doct rine
. The supplem ental st at e cl ai m , the de fen d an ts c o nt en ded, i s ba se d o n the sam e f actualal l ega ti ons ( the unf avo rabl e per f or m ance evaluati on) as H uon’s cl ai m s in sta te cour t a nd wil l be bar re d by r e s j udi ca t a if th e s ta te co u rt ’ s d ec isio n is affir m ed on ap p ea l. Befo r e H uo n c o ul d r es po nd to th e defen dan ts ’ mot i o n, the di str i ct c ourt sua spo nte or d er ed supp l em ental b rie fi n g on “t h e a p p lica b ility of th e d oc tr in es of cla im spl i tting and r es j ud i cata to thi s a cti on. ” The defendants re sp on d ed by n ow ins ist i n g t h a t all of th e c laim s in H uo n’ s fede r ala nd s ta te l aws ui ts a r e ba se d o n the sam e t ra nsacti ons orev ents

— the unf avora b l e e val uati onN o. 10

- 3254 5

a nd s ub s e qu e ntt e r mi na t i on

— an d that r e s j udi ca t a w ill bar H uon’s enti re federa l sui t once the defe nd ants h ave a fi nal ( and favo ra bl e) st ate j ud gm ent in hand. Se e 2 8 U .S.C . § 17 38 . N ot in g t h at H u on inc lu d ed “ g e n e r al a lleg at ion s o f rac ial d isc rim in at ion an d bia s” in h is sta te com pla i nt, the defe nd ants argu ed that the sui ts ar e substa nti al l y si m i l ar . The defe nd ants al so p re sse d th e di st r i ctc o ur t to s ta y th e fede r als ui t unde r the C o lo rad o R iver abst enti on doct rine. In hi s r esponse H uon ar gued that the defe nd ants shoul d b e est oppe d fr om d r a wi n ga n y c o n c l u s i o n fr o m th e a l l e g a t i o n s o fd i s c r i mi nati on in hi s s ta te com pla i nt be cause they had m ove d to s tr i k e th o se a l l eg at i o ns a s i m m at er i al

. The r e i s no i den ti tyo fc l ai m s be tw een the t wo s ui ts , Huonc o nti nued , bec ause hi s fede ra l sui t “ encom passes a bro ader scop e of m iscond uc t” includ ing less f avorab le w ork assign m en ts, d iscipli ne , p r om otions, sal ary, an d w ork con d iti ons , a n d th us ( he thou gh t) r e s j udi ca t a did not ap p ly. H u on als o p oin te d ou t t h at h e h ad to file h is sta te sui t be f or e the o ne- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons ra n o n h i s def amat i o n c l ai m a nd, a t th att i m e, b ec au se he ha d no t y etr ec ei ve d hi s r i g ht

- to
- su e let te r fr o m the EE OC he c oul d not fi l e hi s di scr i m i na tio n c l ai m s in sta te cou rt. H uo n noted th at a stay u n d e r C o lo rad o R iver is j us ti fi ed o nl y b y e xt r ao r di na r y c i r cumst an ce s, whi ch, he i nsi ste d, did notexi st i n thi s instance
. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd ec id ed to st ay t h e fe d er al s u it u n til th e state p roceed ings reach ed an en d

. A p p lyi ng I llin ois’s test for re s judicat a , the cou rt reaso n ed that H uo n’s state and fed eral cl aim s all a r is e out of th e “sam e core of op er at ive fac ts .” T h e c ou rtex p lain ed :6 N o. 10

- 3254 [ H uon] as ser ts i n both p ro ceedi ngs that a t a l l ti m es h e p er for m ed h is job in a sa tis fac to ry m an n er . In hi s st at e pr o ce edings, he a ss er ts tha t be ca us e he p e r f o r me d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y, th e d e fe nd a n t s ’ p e r f o r man ce r ev i ews i n whi chthey re po r te d tha t he per f o r m ed uns at i sf ac to r i l ywer e def amat o r y a nd caused hi m em oti onald ist ress. In the i nstant procee d in g, he as ser ts that because he per f or m ed sat i sfac to rily, h is t er m in at ion m u st h av e b ee n th e re su lt o fdi sc rimi na ti o n, a nd de fen dan ts ’ r epo r ts tha t he perf or m ed uns ati sf acto ri l y t or ti ousl y i nter f er ed w i th h is expectat i on o fco nti nued em plo ym ent. Because th e cl ai m s a ri se fro m the sam e co re o fo perati ve f acts , an i denti ty ofcause s o fact i on e xi sts
. Bec au se o fthe l ac ko fa fi na l j udg m en t o n ap p eal in th e sta te sui t, however, the dist ri ct cou rt bel i eve d that res judic at a coul d not y et barH uon’s federa l sui t. Fo r that re as on ittur ned to the C o lo rad o R iver abst enti on doctr i ne. Ci ti ng thr ee ofthe 10 f acto rs r el evantto wh ether ex ce pti o na l c i r cumst ance s war r an t a st ay, the c o ur t co ncl ud ed that a sta y w as appropri ate
. The co urt provi ded a br i efexpl anati on f ori ts deci si on, r eas oni ng tha t allo w in g t h e fe d er al c as e t o p ro c ee d w ou ld res u lt in p iecem eal l iti gation, that th e proc eed ings in state cou rt w er e a ta n a dv a nc e d s t a g e , a nd tha tthe s t a t e l i t i gat i on h a d p r o v i d e d H u o n an ad e q u a t e f o r u m t o a i r h i s c l a i ms ofdi scr i m i nati on a nd to rt i ou s inter fer ence eve n though he had chos en notto do s o.N o. 10

- 3254 7 II Gen er al l y s pea k i ng, “ th e pen den cyo fa n a ct i o n in the s t a t e c o ur ti s n o b a r t o p r o c e e d i n g s c o n c e r n i n gth e s a me m att eri n the Feder alco urt .” C o lo rad o R iver, 42 4 U.S
. at 817. The Colorado River doctr i ne, however, cr eat es a n a r r ow ex c ep tio n to th at ru le, allow in g fe d er al c ou rt s in som e excepti onal case s to defe r to a concurre n t stat eco ur t ca se as a m at te r o f “wi se j udi ci al ad m i ni st r at i o n, gi vi ng re gar d t o conse rv ati on of j ud i ci al resourc es a nd c o mpr e he ns i v e di s po s i t i o n o fl i t i g a t i o n. ” Id. ( ci tat i on an d quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tted). None th el es s, the S uprem e Cour t has em pha size d that federa l co urts have a “ vi rtual l y unfl agg i ng o bl i gat i on ” to exer ci se the j uri sd ict ion th at C on gr es s h as giv en th em . Id. The Court has cauti o ne d tha t the t a s k o f the di s t r i c t c o ur t “ i s not to fi nd so m e s ubs ta n tia l r eas on forthe exercise offedera l j urisd iction” bu t instead “ to asce rtain w he th er there exi st ‘ excepti onal ’ ci rcum sta nces, the ‘ cl ear esto fj usti fi cati ons, ’
. . . to j usti fy the surren dero fthatj uri sdic ti on. ” M o ses H
. ConeM e m ’ l Hos p. v. M e r cu ry Cons t r . Corp. , 46 0 U.S
. 1, 25

- 26 ( 1983). Thi s co urt re vi ew s a di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on to sta y a cas e under the C o lo rad o R iver doctr i ne f orabuse of d isc re tio n . Tyre r v. Ci ty of S
. Be l oi t, Ill
. , 4 56 F. 3d 744, 751 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. There i s a pre sum p ti on a gainst abst en tio n, i d. ; A XA C o rp. So lutio ns v . U nd erw riters Rein s. Corp
. , 347F.3d 27 2, 27 8 (7 th C ir. 2 00 3), an d if th er e is a ny “ s ub s t a nt i a l do ub t ” tha t the c o nc ur r e nt s t a t e pr oceedi ng w ill b e “ ‘ an adequate vehi cl e forthe com ple te an d prom p t reso lution of the issue s betw een the p arti es, ’ ” a st ay w oul d be a “ ‘ ser i ous abuse o fdi scr etio n, ’ ” AAR In t ’ l, In c . v . Ni mel i as En t e rs . S
. A. , 2 5 0 F. 3d8 N o. 10

- 3254 510, 51 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( quoti ng M os e s H
. Cone, 460 U
. S. at 28). To deter m i n e whether a s tayi s a pp ro pri ate , a dist ri ct cour t m ust fi rs t e val uate w h et h erthe federa l and sta te c as es are p ar alle l. A dkins v. VIM R ecycli ng, Inc. , 64 4 F
. 3d 483, 49 8 (7th Ci r. 20 11)
. In other w or ds, the cour t m ust asc e rtain w he th er “su bsta nt ial ly th e sam e pa rties are c o n t e mp o r a n e o us l y l i t i g a t i n gs u b s t a n t i a l l y th e s a me i ssues i n another f or um . ” C lark v. Lacy , 37 6 F
. 3d 682, 68 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng Int e rs t a te M at e r i al Corp. v. Ci ty of C hicago , 8 4 7F
. 2 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 8 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) )
. T he c r i t i c al qu es tion i s whether ther e i s a “ ‘ substa nti all i kel i hood th a tth e s t a t e l i t i g a t i o n w i l l d i s p o s e o fa l l c l a i ms prese nted i n the federa l cas e. ’ ” Adki ns , 64 4 F
. 3d at 499 (quoti ng C la rk, 376 F.3d at 686 ). I f th e proc eed ings are not paral l el, then the C o lo rad o R iver doctr i ne does not ap p ly an d a st a y is n o t p ro p er . A A R Int’l, 25 0 F
. 3d at 518. I fther e i s a ny doubt th at cas es ar e par al l el, a dist ri ct c ou rtsh ou ld n otab st ain
. Id. at52 0. H uo n a r g ue s th at th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c o nc l udi ng th athi s two s ui ts a r e par al l el

. H e p oints ou t th atthe n a me d d e fe n d a n t s a r e s l i g h t l yd i ffe r e n ti n e a c h o n e a nd the di scr i m i nati on cl ai m s were not l i ti gat ed i n sta te cour t. In re sponse the defendants, apply i n g the te st f or re s ju d icata , ar gue that the sa m e par ti es ar e invol ved be ca us e fi r m pr es i den t John so n, the o nl y ne w defen dan t i n t h e fe d e r a l s u i t, i s i n p r i v i t y w i th th e d e fe n d a n tfi r m. The de fen dants al so s ug g es t th atthe c as es i nv o l ve the sam e cl ai m s be cause, theyco ntend, H uon’s fed er al disc ri m i nati on cl ai m s a ri se out ofthe “sa m e co re o f op er at ive fac ts .”N o. 10

- 3254 9 H uo n has the b et te r o fthi s ar g um en t. Gi ve n the ri g o r o us s ta nda r ds f o r thi s f o r m o fabs te nt i o n, the di st r i ct co ur t’ s ex pl an at i o n f o r i ts fi ndi ng s i s insu ffi ci en t to su p p or t a s tay
. The co urt w as probabl y m i sl ed by th e de fend an ts’ em p ha sis on the test for re s judicat a , und erwh i ch the c en tr alquesti on i s whether the federa l and s tat e cl ai m s ar i se fro m the sam e cor e ofoperat i ve fac ts
. C o lo rad o R iverabs tenti on, i n co n trast, f ocuse s o n th e m or e pr acti calquesti on wh etherthe sta te case is li kely to disp ose of the d iscrim ination an d tortious interfer ence cl ai m s that Hu on brought i n federa l co urt. H ad th e co ur t m ar ch ed through a l l o fthe c o ns i der at i o ns that i nfo rm a C o lo rad o R iverdeci si on, i t is p ossibl e that thi s e rr or m i ght ha ve been avo i ded

. S ee C o lo rad o R iver, 42 4 U .S . at 8 18 -19 ; T yrer, 456 F.3d at75 4-5 5; TruS erv C orp. v. Flegles, Inc. , 419 F .3 d 584, 592-93 (7th Cir. 2005); A A R Int’l, 25 0 F
. 3d at 521. M or eov er, ev en under the ar guabl y m or e l iber al an alysis for c la im prec lusion, the d istri ct cou rt’s r e a s o n i n gf a l l s s ho r t
. T h e c o u r tc o n c l u d e d th a tth e t wo case s a ri se from t he sa m e f acts bec ause H uon al l ege s i n b o th s ui t s tha th e p e r f o r med h i s j o b s a t i s f a c t o r i l y; th u s, th e c o m m o n th em e u n d er lyin g a ll of his cla im s is that the defendants’ def am ato ryst ate m ents orot h er advers e a cti ons m ust be act i onabl e. Thi s e xplanat i on is a bi t t oo te l egr aphic f orus; we cannot see exact l y what f a c t u a l o v e r l a p th e c o u r tf o u n d t o e xi stb e t we e n th e t wo case s . T he fed eral court w as req uired to f oll ow I ll inois’s law of cla im p re c lu sio n, s e e 2 8 U .S.C . § 17 38 , an d Il lin ois im p oses th ree r eq uirem en ts for r e s j udi ca t a to apply: “( 1) ther e was a fin alj ud gm ent o n the m er i ts re nd er ed10 N o. 10

- 3254 by a co urt ofco m petent j u ris dict i on, ( 2) ther e i s a n i denti ty ofcause o fact i on, and (3 ) ther e i s a n i denti ty of parti es or their p ri vi es. ” Rive rPark, Inc . v. Ci ty of H igh la nd P a rk, 70 3 N
. E. 2d 88 3, 8 89 ( I ll

. 1 99 8) , c i ting D o w nin g v . Ch ica go Tran sit A uth ., 642 N
. E
. 2d 456 (I ll

. 1994). Rive rPark ado pte d a t r an sa ct i o na l appr o ac h t o the seco nd o fthes e e l em ents, under wh i ch “the asser ti on o f differ ent k i nd s o r theo ri es ofr el i efst i ll c onst i tutes a si ngl e ca use o fact i on i fa si ngl e g ro up o f o p erati ve f acts gi ve ri se to the a sse rt i on o fr el i ef

. ” 7 03 N
. E.2 d at 8 91 (in te rn al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). H u on es se n tia lly as se r ts tha t hi s cl ai m s do no t a rise o uto fa s i ng l e g r o up ofo perat i ve f ac ts . Although hi s cl ai m s fordef am ati on an d em otional distress cen ter on th e neg ative p erf o r ma n c e e v a l u a t i o n, h i s fe d e r a l d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms ( he sa ys) enco m pass a m uch broad ersco pe ofal l ege d m i sco nd uct o vera l onge r peri od oftim e, i ncl ud i ng unf avor abl e tr eat m ent re gar ding ass i gnm ents, pro m oti ons, d i s c i p l i n a r y me a s u r e s , s a l a r y, a n d w o r kc o n d i t i o n s . We d o n otkn ow w h et h er Il lin ois w ou ld find im p e r m iss ible cl ai m - spl i tt i ngi n thi s k i nd o fsituat i o n, i n whi chthe fi rs t case a p p ea rs to r esto n a s ubset ofthe f acts that supp or t th e s eco nd cas e. Thi s quest i on s houl d be e xp l o r e d o n r e man d. R et u rn in g t o th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s a c tu al ra tio n ale

— C o lo rad o R iver

— w e explain w hy thi s ca se i s no t a propercandi date forabs tenti on. T he fi rs t quest i on, as w e a l r e a dy h a v e i nd i c a t e d, i s wh e the r the t wo s ui ts ar e “p ar al l el

. ” One i m port ant f acto r i s whether both c a s e s w o u l d b e r e s o l v e d b y e x a mi n i n gl a r g e l y th e s a me ev id en c e. F r u - Con Con s t r . Corp. v. Con t r ol l e d Ai r, Inc. , 574N o. 10

- 3254 11 F.3 d 527, 53 6 ( 8th Ci r. 20 09); T yrer, 456 F. 3d at 752. A lthough a l l o fH uon’s cl ai m s r el ate to al l ege d m i stre atm ent he suffer ed at w or k, the ev id ence necess ar y t o est abli sh def am ati on o r em oti onaldi str ess would be differ ent fro m thatr equi re d to prove di scr i m i na tio n . S ee Wood ford v. Cm ty. Action A gency of G re ene C ounty, Inc. , 23 9 F.3d 517, 523-24 (2d C ir
. 2001) (conc lud ing tha t, for p urp os e s of C o lo rad o R iver, federa l Ti tl e VI Isui t was not du pli cati ve ofst ate sui t cl ai m i ng i ntenti onali nfl i ctio n ofem oti onaldi str ess due to ev i denti ar y di ffer en ces b et w ee n cla im s). H u on ’s d isc rim in at ion cla im s like ly w oul d requi re deposi tio ns fro m o therem plo yee s, evi dence ofa bro ader sco pe ofall ege d m i sco nd uct, an d a sh ow in g t h at h e w as tre at ed d iff e r e n t ly th an sim ilar ly si tuate d em plo yee s. N one ofthi s would nece ssar i l y b earo n hi s defam ati on cl ai m . A s the defendants or i gi nal l y s uspected, i t i s unl i ke ly that al l ega ti ons of disc ri m i nati on would co m e up in his sta te sui t, despi te H uon’s passin g re fer ences i n hi s s tat e co m pla i nt to di scrim inatory treatm en t. I n its orde r dism issin g H uo n’s sta te case f or f ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m , the sta te trial cou rt did not m en tion an y pot en tial ly d iscrim inatory conduct o r eve n re spond to defe nd ants’ m oti on t o str i ke thos e r efer ences. Even a ss um i ngtha t H uo n’ s su i ts a r e par al l el, the di st r i ctc o ur t al so s ho ul d ha ve c o ns i der ed whethe r e xc ep tio n al c irc u m st an c es j u st ifie d ab st en tio n . T yrer, 45 6 F. 3d at 751 ( describi ng two- part i nquir y r equi re d by Colorado River ). A s gui dance, thi s co urt has i denti fi ed 10 n on ex c lu siv e f a c t o rs th at a d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld c a r e fu lly w eig h in d ec id in g w h et h er to ab st ain
. Adki ns , 644 F. 3d at 500- 01. These f acto rs i ncl ud e:12 N o. 10

- 3254 ( 1) wh etherthe sta te has a ssum ed j uri sdic ti on o ver p r o pe r t y ; ( 2 ) th e i n c o n v e n i e n c e o fth e fe d e r a l f o r u m; ( 3) the de si r ab i l i ty o fa vo i di ngpi ec emea l l i ti g at i o n; ( 4) the or der in w h ich j uri sdic ti on was ob tained by th e co nc ur r en t f o r um s; ( 5) the s o ur ce o fg o ve r ni ng law , state or federal; (6) t h e ad eq ua cy of state-cou rt ac ti o n t o pr o te ct the fede r alpl aint i ff’ s r i g ht s; ( 7) the re l ati ve prog re ss ofst ate and federa l pro ceedi ngs; ( 8) the pr es en ce o r abs en ce o fc o nc ur r en t j ur i sdi ct i o n; ( 9) the a va i l ab i l i tyo fr emov al ; a nd ( 10) the v ex at i o us o r c o n t r i v e d n a t u r e o fth e fe d e r a l c l a i m. Id. ( quotin g T

yrer, 456 F.3d at 754 ). Altho ug h n o o ne fac to r is d et er m in at ive , C o lo rad o R iver, 42 4 U.S . a t 8 18, the Suprem e Cour t has cauti oned that“the pre sence of federa l

- l aw i ssues m u st always be a m aj orco nsi derat i on w ei ghi ng ag ai nst s urr ender, ” M os e s H
. Co ne, 46 0 U.S
. at 26. Fur ther m or e, bec ause ofthe presum pti on a gainst abst enti on, abs ent o r neutra l f acto rs weigh i n f avo r of exer ci si ng j uri sdic ti on. S ee W o o dfo rd, 23 9 F.3d at52 2; M urphy v. U ncle B en’s, Inc. , 1 68 F.3d 734, 73 9 (5th C ir. 1999). H ere, th e d istri ct cou rt’s consid eration of these f act ors wa s i na de qu a t e . Aft e r r e s t a t i ngthe t e s t, the c o ur ta ddr essed o nl y the pr o bl em o fpi ec emea l l i ti g at i o n, the advanced sta ge ofthe sta te l i tiga ti on, and the adequacy o fth e s t a t e c o u r ta s a f o r u m fo r H u o n ’ s fe d e r a l d i s c r i mi nati on cl ai m s. Bu t none of these f acto rs w as given m or e t h an a on e-s en te n c e e x p lan at ion, an d so ev en if the di str i ct c ourtwas cor re ct that these f acto rs weigh st ro n gl y in f avo r ofabs tenti on, the cour t f ai l ed to expla i n w hy the y m att eri n thi s par ti cul arcas e.N o. 10

- 3254 13 H uon chal l enges ea ch of th e di str i ct c ourt ’ s r eas ons, argui ng tha t a n I l l i noi s ci rcui t co urt i s no t a n adequate f o r um b ec au se i t wi l l no t hear “i nde pen den t ac ti o ns f o r c i v i l r i g ht s , ” tha tthe s tat e p r o c e e di ngwa s n o ta dv a n c e d b e c a us e hi s s u i tw a s d i s mi s s e d o n th e c o mpla in t, an d that he was f or ced to spl i t hi s cl ai m s be cause he ha d no t y etr ec ei ve d a r i g ht

- to
- su e l et ter w he n the sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons on on e ofhi s s tat e cl ai m s was about to expir e. B u t H uon i s wrong on a l l thr ee counts. I l l i nois ci rcui t co urts have co ncurr ent j uri sdic ti on o ver c laim s a ris in g u n d er T itle V II an d § 19 81
. Yel l ow Fre ight Sys. , Inc. v. D onnelly, 49 4 U .S. 82 0, 82 6 (1 99 0); M a rtinez v. C alif ornia , 4 44 U .S. 27 7, 28 3 n .7 (19 80 ); G arci a v. Vill. of M t. Pr o spect, 3 60 F
. 3d 63 0, 6 39 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. The questi on wh etherthe sta te l i ti gat i on has r eached an ad van ced stage tu rns n ot on th e am ou nt of d iscovery com ple ted but on how f arthe sta te cour t has pro gr ess ed to w ar d a fin al re so lu ti o n . M os e s H
. Cone, 46 0 U.S
. at21
. A nd thi s co urt has hel d that, al thou gh the pend ency of a s tat e- cour t s uitcannotal one justi fy abste nti on, that fac to r sh ou ld be giv en m or e w eig h t if th e s ta te ca se is alr ea d y on a p p ea l. He ar nev. Bd. of Educ
. of

theCi ty of Chic ago , 1 85 F
. 3d 77 0, 7 78 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 9)
. F i na l l y, the f ac t th atHuonha d no t y etr ec ei ve d hi s r i g ht

- to
- su e l ett er d id n ot preve nt hi m fro m i ncl ud i ng hi s federa l disc ri m i nati on cl ai m s in hi s s tate sui t. I l l i noi s per m i ts l i ti g an ts to fi l e su ppl ement alpl ea di ng s “s et tingup m atters w hich ari se after the origi na l p lead ings are filed ,” if th e n ew m a t e r i a l is ad d ed w ith ina re as on ab le ti m e a nd the court g i ves l eave . S ee 735 I LC S 5/2- 609; see al so B rzost ow ski v. Laidlaw W asteSys. , Inc. , 49 F. 3d 337,14 N o. 10

- 3254 339 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( expla i ni ng tha t pl ai nt iff co uld have ask ed f or sta y i n sta te cour t unti l ri ght- to- sue le tte r w as iss ued). W hetherH uon w as required t o a dd the f e de r a l c l a i ms i s a n o th e r ma t t e r th a t h a s mo r e t o do w ith cla im p re c lu sio n t h an ab st en tio n . See ge n er ally Wo o dfo rd, 239 F.3d at 525 ( con clud in g tha t plaintiff s w er e “ p lain ly en tit led ” t o b rin g A ge D isc rim in a t ion in Em pl o y m en t Act an d Ti tl e VI I cl ai m s i n fede r al cou rt eve n though they coul d have a dd ed these clai m s t o p en d ing state case). Eve n i fthe se thr ee factors wei g h in f av o r o fabs te nt i o n, how eve r, we are st i l l m i ssing the nece ssa ry expl anati on fro m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d ecis i on j usti fyi ng the r el i nquishm ent ofits j uri sdic ti on. S ee T yrer, 45 6 F
. 3d at 754- 55 ( no tingtha t “wha t i s r equir ed i s a ca r eful l y c o nsi dered j u d gm ent t aking i nto acco unt both the obl i gat i on to e x e r c ise j urisd iction and the com binat ion of factors c ou n se lin g a ga in st th at ex er c ise ”); AXA Corp
. Solu t i ons , 34 7F
. 3 d a t2 7 8

- 7 9 ( p r a i s i n gd i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c a r e fu l c o nside ration of al l 10 factors an d affirm ing d en ialof stay); A A R Int’l, 250 F.3d a t 5 18 (noting that district cou rt m ust “ exer ci se i ts disc re ti on under the st andards pre

scr ibed by C o l o rad o R iver ” t o a vo id rev er sa l); Sve r dr up C o rp. v. E dw a rdsv ille C m ty. U nit S ch . D ist. No . 7, 12 5 F
. 3d 546, 5 50 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( “W e a re o bl i gat ed, however, to re quir e that the r eco rd de m on st ra te that the di str i ct cour t’ s deci si on was the product o fca re ful w ei ghi ng o f t h e f a ctors p ertinen t to the ca se at ha nd

. ”); Bur ne t tv. P hysici an’s O nline, Inc. , 99 F. 3d 72, 77 (2 d C i r. 19 96) ( re ve rs i ng di str i ct c ourt ’ s s tayand noting tha t a l though c ou rtga ve “lu c id st a te m en t o f p ra c tic al a n d eq u ita b le co ns i der at i ons” i t di d no t su ffi ci en tly a ddr es s th eN o. 10

- 3254 15 C o lo rad o R iver factors). For exam p le, the cou r t ’s fail ure t o a d d r e s s th e o th e r s ev en C o lo rad o R iver f acto rs l ed i t t o ove rl oo k the si gni fi cant i nter estthatfedera l co urts have i n Ti tl e VI Iand § 198 1 d i scr i m i nati on cl ai m s. S ee Wo o dfo rd, 239 F.3d at52 5; M urphy, 16 8 F
. 3d at 739. I t a pp ear s that th e re alm oti vati on be hi nd the dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on was i ts guess that r e s j u d i c a t a w o u ld eve ntual l y pr ecl ud e a l l o fH u on’ s cl ai m s in federa l co urt. Butthi s l ayi n the futur e; the c ou rt’ s an ti ci pat i o n o fthe ou tc om e in the sta te appell ate co urt w as not enough t o j usti fy abstenti on. S ee Wo o dfo rd, 239 F.3d at52 5; M urphy, 168 at 739; Bu rne tt, 99 F. 3d at75

- 77. A bste nti on r equi re s m or e than the pend ency ofano therl aw su it, beca use j u d icia l ec on om y w ill alw ay s b e a n is s u e w h en th er e is con c u r rent l iti gation. K now ing this, th e Sup rem e C ou rt never thel ess has adm oni shed dist ri ct j ud ges not to st ay ordi sm i ss acti ons w i thout str ong j usti fi cati on t o do so

. C o lo rad o R iver, 42 4 U.S
. at81 3. Give n the hi gh hurdl es f o r abs ta i ni ng in the f ac e o fa n “ unfl ag g i ngo bl i g at i o n” to ex er c ise th e jur isd ict ion C on g r e ss h as co n fer re d , i d. at 817, w e m us t return th is c a s e to the d istri ct cou rt f orano therl oo k. It m ay be th at H u on e v e n t u a lly w ill fac e t h e p os sibi l i tytha t hi s fede ral su it i s ba r r ed byc l ai m pr ec l us i o n, i fth e di s mi s s a l o fh i s s t a t e c o mp l a i n ti s u p h e l d o n a ppeal

. S ee Exxon M o bilCorp. v. Sa udiBas i c Indu s . Corp. , 5 4 4 U .S. 28 0, 29 2-9 4 (2 00 5); C a rr v. Tillery, 5 9 1 F
. 3 d 9 0 9, 91 6 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 10 ); Negrón-Fuentes v. UP S Supply C hain Sol ut i ons , 532 F.3d 1, 8 (1s t C ir. 20 08 ); B a ss v. B utler, 25 8 F.3d 176 , 178-79 (3d Cir. 2001). Bu t when H uon c h os e to16 N o. 10

- 3254 i ni ti at e se par at e su i ts i n s tate an d fede r alc o ur ts , he ac ce pte d the r i sktha t anunf av o r ab l e j udg m en t i n the c as e t h at finis h ed firstm igh t p re c lu d e h is litig at ion in the othe r f or um . A l though at fi rs t bl ush i t m ay seem i neffi ci ent t o al l ow both ca ses to pro ceed, the C o lo rado R iver do c tr ine f ocuse s o n a federa l co urt’ s obl i gat i on t o exer ci se i ts j uri sd ictio n, se e Adki ns , 64 4 F
. 3d at 496, with p reclusion doc tr ines op erating as a ba ckst op to ensu re th atthe c o nc ur r en t pr o ce eding s do no t r es ul t i n inc o nsi ste nt j ud gm ents. S ee Stew a r t v . Western Heritag e Ins. , 438 F.3 d 48 8, 49 2 (5 th C ir. 20 06 ); G regory v. D aly, 24 3 F
. 3d 687, 702 n.1 3 (2 d Cir
. 20 01) ( ci ti ng S p r i n gC i tyC o rp . v . A m. Bldgs . Co. , 193 F. 3d 165, 172 ( 3d C ir . 1999); Wo o dfo rd, 23 9 F. 3d at 525 ( quoti ng Kli nev. BurkeCons t r . Co. , 26 0 U.S
. 22 6, 230 ( 1922 ) ). Th e C o lo rad o R iver doctr i ne i s no t intended to g i ve de fen dan ts the uppe r h an d b y s ta l l i ngthe f e d e r a l ca se to w aitfor a fav or ab le fin al jud gm en t in th e st ate p roce edingtha t th enc anb e us ed to b arthe pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m s in federa l co urt. H uon’s federa l case has been l angui shi ng f oralm ost tw o ye ar s o n th e a ss u m p t i o n th at th e Illino is c irc u it cour t’ s j ud gm ent wil l so m eday b e a ffi rm ed, but th at ou tcom e is far from c e r t a in
. W e the refore V ACATE the di s t r i c tco urt’ s s t a y a nd R EMA ND thi s ca se f or furth er proc eed ings con sisten t w ith th is or d er.

9- 21- 11