Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30361

LA C R E A L E S T A T E H O L D IN G S , L .L .C . A N D C A R M AH O L D IN G S , L .L .C

. P l a i n tiffs-A p p ell a n t s v. BI LOX I M ARS H LANDS CORP ORAT I ON; T HE M ABELI S ABELM OLER O QU ATRO Y REVO CAB LE LIVI N G TRU ST; DO RO TH Y LOU I SE O’ TOO LE BENGE; P AT RI CIA C. O’ TOOL E; L ENA R. T ORRES , CL ERK OF COURT OF ST. BERN ARD PARI SH; JACKA. ST EPH EN S, SHER I FF OF S T. BER N ARD PARI SH; M ARLEN E VI N SANA U , ASS ESSOR OF ST. B E R NA R D P A R I S H D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 02962

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. D AV I S, C i r c ui tJudge * Pl a i n t i f fs LAC R e a lEs t a t e Ho l d i n g s , L. L. C. a n dCa r m a Ho l d i n g s , L

. L. C. ap pea lt h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourtst aying thi s c ase i n favor of parall el United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April8, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30361

2 st at e c our tl i t i gat i on. Based on o ur c onc l usi on t h a t t hi s c as e pr es ent s an e xc e pt i o nal c i r c um s t anc e t o w hi c h Colorad o R i vera b s te n tio n a p p lie s , w e a ffir m . I. T h i s c ase i n volves a di spu t e concern ing the en t i t l em en tt o gas royal t i es f rom a parcelof

m arsh l an d i n St. B erna rd P ari sh. Th e st ate li t i gati on com m en ced w h en B i l oxiM arsh L an ds C orporati on (B i l oxi) f i l ed a P et i t i on f

or P o s s e s s o r yA c tio n (th e P o s s e s s o r yA c tio n ) inth e 3 4 J u d ic ia l D is tr ic t C o u r t in th S t. B ern a rdP a ri sh , L ou i sian a(S tate T ri a lC ou rt) i n N ov em b er 2 0 0 1
. T w o se ts
o f d e fe n d a n ts w e r e n a m e d : (1 ) th e M a b e lI s a b e l M o le r o Q u a tr o yR e v o c a b le L iv in gT r u s t; D o r o th yL o u is e O ’ T o o le B e n g e ; P a tr ic iaC . O ’ T o o le (c o lle c tiv e ly M o l e r o ) , a n d( 2 ) LAC Re a lEs t a t e Ho l d i n g s , L

. L. C. a n dCa r m a Ho l d i n g s , L

. L. C. (col l ect ivel y LA C )

. I n t h e P osses sory A ct i on , B i l oxiis seek i n g t o ha ve t h e court de t e r m i ne w hi c h pa r t y has t he r i ghtt o po s s e s s c e r t ai n pr o pe r t y, de s c r ibe d a s t he
en t i ret y of

Secti on s 1, 2, a n d 3, T ow n shi p 13 Sou t h , R an ge 16 E ast, St. B erna rd P a r is h , L o u is ia n a(th e P r o p e r ty). Se ve r alm on t h s l at e r , M o l e r o , o ne o f t he de fe nda ntg r o ups i n t he Pos s e s s o r y Act i on, f i l e d as e pa r at e s ui tw i t h t he St at e Tr i alCour tc l ai m i ng ow n er s hi p o f t he Pr o pe r t y and s e e ki ng t o e nj o i n Bi l o xi and LA C f rom t respassi n g (D ecl arator y Ju dg m en tA ct i on )

. B ecau se t h i s ac t i on i n volved
c o m m o n i s s ue s o f

l aw and fac t , t he s am e Pr o pe r t y, a nd t he s am e pa r t i e s , t he S ta te T r ia l C o u r t c o n s o lid a te dM o le r o ’ s s u it w ith th e P o s s e s s o r yA c tio n . Th e t w o o i lc om pani es t hatt oo k l eas es f r om al lof

t he par t i es and t hat d i scov ere dan dare pr od u ci n g n a tu ra lga s f rom the P rop ertyf

i l ed co ncursu s su i ts i n the St at e Tr i alCour t
. The c o nc ur s us pr o c e e di ngsna m e d Bi l o xi , LAC , a nd Mo l e r o a s d e fe n d a n t s a n dr e q u i r e dt h e p a r t i e s t o a s s e r t t h e i rr e s p e c t iv e c l a i ms of ow n ershi p to t h e P ropert y ( an d the royal t i es r esul t i n g f rom produ ct i on f

rom th e P rop erty). T h e S tate T ri a lC ou rt also con soli d a tedthe con cu rsu s ca ses w i thN o. 08- 30361

3 t h e previ ou sl y co ns o li da t e d P osses sory A ct i on an d D ecl arator y Ju dg m en tA ct i on (c o lle c tiv e ly , th e C o n s o lid a te dA c tio n s ). B i l oxi f i l ed a M ot i on t o S et L i t i gati on P rocedure i n t h e C on sol i da t ed A c tio n s in w h ic h it a r g u e dth a t t h e c o u r tm u s t fir s t d e te r m in e w h o is in po s s e s s i o n o f

t he Pr o pe r t y pr i o rt o de t e r m i ni ng t h e i s s ue o f o w ne r s hi p. The S t ate T ri alC ou rtd i sagreed an d den i ed t h e m ot i on . B i l oxithen sough trevi ew o f t hator de r . The Lo ui s i anaFo ur t h Ci r c ui tg r ant e d Bi l o xi ’ s w r i ti n pa r t , s t at i ng t h at t h e State T ri alC ou rtm u stdeter m i n e possess i on b ef ore ow n ershi p becau se
u n der L ou i si an a l aw t h e bu rd en of proof on the pa rt y seeki n g t o est abli sh
o w ne r s hi p i s m o r e o ne r o us i f a n a dv e r s e pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o po sses si on. The L ou i si an a S u prem e C ou rtden i ed M ol ero’ s s u bsequ en tapp l i cat i on f or a w ri tof
c e r tio r a r i. LA C m ad e s e ve r alm o r e a t t e m pt s t o c hall e nget he o r de ri n whi c h t he C ons ol i dat ed A c t i ons w oul d pro c ee d. Fi r st , LA C f i l ed a M ot i on f

orP a r t i al S u m m a r yJ u d g m e n t c h a lle n g in gth e v a lid i tyo f a1 9 1 4 ta xs a le to ap a r tyin B ilo x i’ s ch a in o f tit le to th e P r o p e r ty . L A C ’ s m o tio n c o n te n d e dt h a t th e t a xs a le
w as voi d f

or l ack of

noti ce and a rg u e d t h at th e sal e vi ol ated t h e du e process ri gh t s of

LA C ’ s predecessor s i n t i t l e un der Me nnoni t eB oar d of Mi s s i ons v. A d a ms , 46 2 U

. S. 7 91 , 8 00 ( 19 83 ) , a nd Mu l lan e v. Central Han over B an k & Trust Co. , 3 39 U

. S. 3 06 ( 19 50 )

. The St at e T r i alC o ur tst ay e d t he m o t i o n unt i lt he i s s ue o f p o s s e s s io n w a s re s o l v e d

. L A C a p p e a le da n dth e L o u is ia n a F o u r th C ir c u it den i ed the w ri t
. Th e L ou i si an a S u prem e C ou rtden i ed L A C ’ s app l i cat i on f or a
w r it o f c e r tio r a r i. N e xt , LAC f

i l e d a m o t i o n t o se tt he M o t i o n f o rPar t i alSum m ar y Jud gm e nt f or heari n g. Th e State T ri alC ou rtgran t ed the m ot i on af t er a h eari n g, bu t , up on appealb y B i l oxi , t he Loui si ana Fourt h C i r c ui tr eve r se d, r es t at i ng i t s or i gi nal ord er th a t t h e tri a l cou rt m u st f i rst de term i n e w h eth er re l a tor h a s th e righ t t oN o. 08- 30361

4 p o s s e s s i o n b e f

o r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i s s u e o f o w n e r s h i p . T h e L o u i s i a n a S u p r e me C o u r t d e n ie dLA C ’ s a p p lic a tio n fo rw r it o f c e r tio r a r i. LA C t he n f

i l e d t w o s t at e c o ur tsuit s i n t he 34 J udic i alD i s t r i c tt o a nnul th tw o t a x sales i n th e cha i n of ti tl e t o t h e P rop erty
. T h e t a x sale s o c c u r r e d in 19 14 a nd 1 92 9. Bi l o xia nd M o l ero f i l e d e xc e pt i o ns o f

l i s pe nde ns a nd prem aturi t y. Th e st ate c ou rt gran t ed t h ose excepti on s an d di sm i ssed t h e sui t s. F i n al l y, LA C f

i l ed thi s f

ederalsui tal l egi n g a vi ol ati o n of i t s du e process ri gh t s. I n i t s c om pl ai n t , L A C sough ta “h eari n g an d order di rect i n g t h e C l erk of C our t of St

. B er nard Pari sh t o c ance lt he s ai d uncons t i t ut i onal1914 and 1929 t ax sal es” an d “a ju dg m en tdecl ari n g t h e am ou n tof an y back t axes w h i ch pl ai nt i f fs m ay o w e a s a r es ul tof t h e canc el l at i on o f t he t ax s al es and t ax c o nf i rm at i o n. ” Bi l o xif i l e d am o t i o n t o di s m i s s , o ra l t e r nat ive l y s t ayt he p r o c e e d in g s . The di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s ruli ng o n t he m o t i o n i s no te nt i r e l y c l e ar . Dur i ng t he he ar i ng o n t he m o t i o n, t he di s t ri c tc o ur tdi s c us s e d Colorad o R i verabstenti on a n dt h e fa c t o r s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r ti s r e q u i r e dt o c o n s i d e ru n d e rt h a td o c t r i n e . At t h e end of

t h e h e a rin g, t h e di st ri ctcourtal so di scussed t h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm an d o c tr in e a n dco n c lu d e dth a t if th e fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t e n te r e daju d g m e n t in t h i s c ase, i tw ou l d be “t aci t l y, i f not di rect l y, rever si n g deci si on s of pri or a p p e lla te co u r ts in th is p a r tic u la rm a tt e r .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te dth a t it
w ou l d n otg ran tthe m ot i on t o di sm i ss bu trat h er w ou l d ab st ai n un der R ookerFe l dm an a n da d o p t e dt h e a r g u m e n t s f i l e db yBil o x ii n s u p p o r to f t h e mot i o n. Bi l o xia r gue d b o t h R o o ke r - Fe l dm an and s e ve r al ba s e s f o ra bs t e nt i o n, i nc l udi ng Colorad o R i ver a b s t e n t io n , in s u p p o r to f i t s m o t io n . W e r e a dth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s st atem en t s as m a k in g t w o al t erna t ive h ol di n gs: t o abstai n un der R ookerFe l dm an an d to abstai n un der Colorad o R i vera s di s c us s e d i n t he he ar i ng and
a r g u e din B ilo x i’ s b r ie f in s u p p o r t o f th e m o tio n . LA C tim e lya p p e a le d

. II

.N o. 08- 30361

Wenote als o th at if Rooker-Fe ldmanhad applie d, the di strict court would have b een 1 without j uri sdictionto con si der the ca sean d the prop er re me dy would h ave b eento di smi ss, ratherth anst ay , the ca se . 5 T h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm an d o c tr in e a r is e s fr o m tw o ca s e s , R ooker v. Fi d eli ty TrustCo. , 2 63 U

. S. 4 13 ( 19 23 ) , a nd D i s t r i c tof Col um bi a Cour tof

Appeals v. Fe l dm an , 460 U

. S. 462 ( 1983)

. I n t hos e c as es , t he Suprem e Courtex pl ai ned t hat l ow er fed era lcou rts lack th e p ow er to m od i fy or rev erse state cou rt j u d gm en ts b eca u se 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 12 5 7 ve sts ex cl u sive j u ri sd i cti on to rev i ew or m od i fy a sta te court j u dg m en ti n t h e Su prem e C ou rt
. “T h e R o o ke r- Fe l dm an d o c tr in e . . . is confi n ed to cases of

t h e ki n d i n w h i ch the doctr i n e acqu i red its n am e: cases brou gh tby st ate- court l osers com pl ai n i n g of i nj u ri es c au sed b y st ate- court j udg m e nt s ren de r e d b e f o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o c e e di ngs c o m m e nc e d a nd i n viti n g d i stri ct cou rt review an drejecti on of th ose j u d gm en ts. ” Exxo n Mo b ile Cor p. v . SaudiBas i cI

ndus

. Cor

p. , 5 4 4 U .S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (2 0 0 5 ). R o o ke r - Fe l dm an has no ap pl i c at i o n t o t hi s c as e . LA C i s not “ t h e l o s i ng p a rty i n s tate cou rt .
. . a ft er th e state p roce ed i n gs en d ed

. ” I d. a t 2 9 1
. T h e sta te
c o ur tpr o c e e di ngs a r e s t i l lpe ndi ng andno f i nalj udgm en th as b e e n r e nde r e d. R ather t h i s c ase i n volves parall e l st ate and federall i t i gati on , i n w h i ch
c i r c um s t anc e “ [ c ] o m i t y o ra bstenti o n do c t r i ne s m ay. . . pe r m i to rr e quir e t he federalcourtt o st ay or di sm i ss t h e federalact i on i n favor of t h e st ate- court l i ti ga ti on . ” I

d. a t 2 9 2
. 1 II I. W e t ur n t he n t o c o ns i de rw he t he rt he di s t r i c tcour tpr o pe r l y s t ay e d t he federalcase i n deference t o t h e st ate c ou rtproceedi n gs. W e revi ew a di st ri ct
c o u r t’s d e c is io n to s t a yaca s e p e n d in gth e o u tc o m e o f p a r a lle l p r o c e e d in g s in
s ta te co u r t fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . K e l l yI nv . , I nc . v . Cont ’l

. Com m o n Cor p. , 315 F

. 3d 494 , 497 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)

. W e revi ew de n ovo w h et h er t h e requi rem en t s ofN o. 08- 30361

6 a p a r tic u la ra b s te n tio n d o c tr in e a r e s a t i s f i e d

. Nat i onw i de Mut
. I ns. Co. v. Un a u t h o r iz e dPra c t i c eof L a w Co mm. , 2 8 3 F .3 d6 5 0 , 6 5 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). Colorad o R i verabstenti on i s app l i ed t o a voi d d u pl i cat ive l i t i gati on w h en p a r a lle l p r o c e e d in g s a r e p e n d in gin fe d e r a l a n ds ta te c o u r t. D i am on dOf f shore Co. v. A& BB u i l d ers , 3 0 2 F .3 d5 3 1 , 5 3 8 -4 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). “S u its a r e p a r a lle l, f or t h e pu rposes of

deter m i n i n g w h et h er Colorad o R i ver a b s te n tio n a p p l ie s , if th ey i n vo lve th e sam e p a rti es a n dthe sam e issu es.” Id

. a t5 40 ( al t e r at i o ns a nd quo t at i o ns m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. The i s s ue s i n t hi s f e de r ala c t i o n c l e ar l y o ve r l ap t he i s s ue s i n t he Cons o l i da t i o n Ac t i o ns . LAC s i m ply s e e ks i n t hi s ca s e t o have t he Men n o n itei ssu es ce n tral t o it s ow n ersh ip cl a i m h ea rdea rl i er th a n the state
c o u r t r u le s w ill a llo w . A ls o , t h e p a r tie s in t h e C o n s o lid a te dA c tio n s a r e n e a r ly id e n tic a l to th e fe d e r a l s u it. A ll o f th e p a r tie s in th is c a s e h a v e b e e n n a m e din
o ne o rm o r e o f

t he s t at e courtsuit s , e i t he ri n t he Cons o l i da t e d Ac t i o ns o rt he sui t s t o an n u lt h e 191 4 an d 19 2 9 ta x s a l es orboth, except f or t h e St. B erna rd Par i s h Cl e r k o f Cour t , Ass e s s o r and She r i f f

. Thi s i s s uf

f i c i e ntf o rt he s t at e a nd fe d e r a l co u r t p r o c e e d in g s to b e p a r a lle l. U n der Colorad o R i ver , a di st ri ctcou rtm ay ab st ai n f rom a case onl y u n der

“ e x c e p tio n a l cir c u m s ta n c e s .” Colo . R i v e r W at e r Cons e r v at i o n D i s t
. v . Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 2 4 U

. S. 800, 813 (U

. S. 1976)

. I n dec i di ng w het her“ exc ept i onal ci rcum st an ces” exi st , t h e Su prem e C ou rtha s i den t i f i ed si x n on excl u sive fact ors t o consi der: (1 ) a s s u m p tio n b ye ith e rco u r t o f ju r is d ic tio n o v e rare s , (2 ) r e la tiv e in c o n v e n ie n c e o f th e fo r u m s , (3 ) a v o id a n c e o f p ie c e m e a l litig a tio n , ( 4) t he o r de ri n whi c h j ur i s di c t i o n was o bt ai n ed by t he c o nc ur r e nt fo r u m s , ( 5) t o w hatex t e ntfe de r all aw pr o vi de s t he rul e s o f de c i s i o n o n t he
m e r i t s , a ndN o. 08- 30361

7 ( 6) t h e a deq u acy of

the st ate proc eedi n gs i n prot ect i n g t h e ri gh t s of t h e party i n vok i n g federalj u ri sdi ct i on D i am on dOf

f shore , 302 F. 3d at 540, n. 6 ( quot i ng B lack S ea Inv. L t d

. v. Un i t ed He r i t ageCor

p. , 204 F

. 3d 647 , 650 ( 5th C i r. 200 0) )

. Th e fact ors are not app l i ed
m echa n i cal l y, bu tm u stbe caref u l l y balanced “w i th theb al anc ehe avi l y w ei gh t ed i n fa vo r of th e exe rcise of j u ri sd i cti on . ” S t ew artv. W

. Heri t ag e I n s. Co. , 438 F. 3d 488, 492 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Mo se s H. Co n e Mem ’l. Ho sp . v . Mer cu ry Co n st. Cor p. , 4 6 0 U .S . 1 , 1 6 (1 9 8 3 )). W h i l e ackn ow l edg i n g t h at abst en t i on i s a “rare c reatu re and m u stm eet certa i n cri teria, ” t h e d i stri ct co u rt co n sider ed the ab ov e factors a n dex ercised i ts di scr et i on t o abstai n . Th e di st ri ctcourtnoted t h at t h e f ederalcourtha d n ot
as s u m e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a n y r e s , wh e r e a s t h e o i l a n d g a s r o y a l t i e s f r o m t he pro per t y i n ques t i on have bee n deposi ted i nt o t he r egi st r y o f t he St at e Tr i al Cour t
. I tc o nc l ude d t hat the secon d fac t o ri s ne ut r alb e c aus e t he r e w as no i n con ve n i en ce to t h e p a rti es to try th e ca se in th e S tate T ri a lC ou rt i n S t. Ber nar d Pa r i s h r at he rt han i n f e de r alcou r ti n N e w O r l e ans , Lo ui s i ana . The di st ri ct court f

ou n d that t h e t h i rd an d f ou rt h fact ors w ei gh ed st rongly i n favor o f a b s te n tio n , n a m e ly , th e d e s ir e to a v o idp ie c e m e a l litig a tio n a n dth e o r d e rin
w h i ch j u ri sdi ct i on w as obtai n ed. Th e courtnoted t h at t h i s c ase ha d been l i t i ga ted in s t at e c our ts i nce ea r l y 2001 and had bee n t he s ubj ec tof s eve r al ap pea l s on t h e subj ectof procedu re. I tal so r ecognized t h at th e State T ri alC ou rt
w as n ot ref

u si n g t o hea r t h e Men n o n itei s s ue t he pl ai nt i f fs w e r e ra i s i ng i n t he fe de r als ui t ; i t had s i m ply de c i de d t o t r y po s s e s s i o n f i r s t t o e s t ab l i s h t he b ur de ns of proof u n d e r s t ate proc edu rall aw . O n t h e rel ated f i f t h an d si xth i ssues, al t h ou gh federall aw i s i m pl i cat ed i n t h e Me nno ni t e iss u e, t h e di st ri ctcourt
no t e d t hatt he St at e Tr i alC our tw as no tde nyi ng LA C t he r i ghtt o r ai s e t he constit u t i on alcl ai m , rat h er itha d st ated t h e m et h od o log ya n d order by w h i ch t h e Men n o n itei ssue w ou l d be d eci ded w i t h res pect t o t h e i n t errel ated i ssue ofN o. 08- 30361

8 possessi on an d ow n e rsh i p i n t h e st ate c ase. A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ctcourt f ound t hatt he s t ate co u rt p r oc ee di ngs w er e a dequat e t o pr ot ec tt he f ede r al p la in tiff

’ s rig h ts
. W e agree w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s ana l ysi s of t h e Colorad o R i verfact ors. I n pa r t i c ul art he s e parall elcas e s c r e at e ada nge ro f pi e c e m e all i t i ga t i o n. The st ate c ou rtw i l leven t u al l y reach the Menn on i t e i ssue t h at LA C seeks t o be hea rd i n t h e f ede ra l d istr i ctcourt
. R esol u t i on of t h e Menn on i t e i ss ue by t he f ede r al d i stri ct cou rt w i l ln ot d ecide or sign i fi ca n tly re d u ce th e litig a tio n in the S tate Tr i alCour t , w hi c h woul d s t i l l be r e quir e d t o t r y po s s e s s i o n ando w ne r s hi p. The S ta te T r ia l C o u r t’s o w n p r o c e d u r a l r u le s d ic ta te th e o r d e r in w h ic h th e ca s e w ill b e tr ie d , a m e th o d o lo g y w h ic h LA C h a s r e p e a te d lya n d u n s u c c e s s fu lly ch a l l en ge di n the L ou i sian ac ou rts. T h e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s d i scre ti on byde cl i n i n g to h ea r the si n gle i ssu e in th i s ca se a n d u p set th e S tate T r ia l C o u r t’s d e te r m in e dp r o c e d u r e . IV

. Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , t he j udg m e nto f t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts t ay i ng t he fe d e r a lco u r t c a s e in fa v o ro f th e ca s e s p r o c e e d in gin th e S ta te T r ia l C o u r t is
a ffir m e d

. A F F IR M E D

.