[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11355

____________________

ELIEZER TAVERAS,

VALERIA ROSA TAVERAS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

SERVIS ONE, INC., d.b.a. 

BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES,

CHRISTIANA TRUST, a division of 

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, 

FSB, not in its individual capacity, 

but as trustee of ARLP Trust 4, 

Defendants-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 1 of 16
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00189-WWB-EJK

____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MANASCO, District

Judge.∗

MANASCO, District Judge:

This appeal presents the question whether a district court 

abused its discretion by abstaining from exercising federal jurisdiction pending the conclusion of a related state case. This case arises 

out of a dispute concerning the validity of a mortgage and an allegedly fraudulent promissory note purportedly secured by a parcel of real property located at 7706 Excitement Drive, Kissimmee, 

Florida 34747 (“the Property”). Appellants Eliezer and Valeria 

Taveras purchased the Property in 2006, and the Property is subject 

to an ongoing Florida state court foreclosure proceeding that has 

been pending since 2016. 

The district court determined that the Taverases’ federal

claims should be stayed until conclusion of the state foreclosure 

case under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. See Colo. River 

Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976). On 

∗ The Honorable Anna M. Manasco, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 2 of 16
22-11355 Opinion of the Court 3

appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Taveras raise two issues: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion by abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under Colorado River and staying the federal case, pending 

conclusion of the state court foreclosure case; and (2) whether the 

district court erred by denying the Taverases’ motion to amend the 

complaint. 

After careful consideration and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This appeal arises out of the most recent in a series of lawsuits litigating the validity of a mortgage and an allegedly fraudulent promissory note secured by the Property. The Property was 

the subject of an unsuccessful foreclosure action in 2008. Then in 

2014, the Taverases filed a declaratory action in Florida state court

against appellee Christiana Trust (“the Trust”), seeking a declaration that the mortgage on the Property was null and void. Taveras 

v. Christina [sic] Tr., No. 2014 CA 002620 MF (9th Cir. Ct. Fla. Aug. 

28, 2014). Mr. and Mrs. Taveras obtained a default declaratory judgment in the 2014 state case, and a state court appeal followed. 

The Taverases allege that, in June 2015, appellee Bank of 

America, N.A. (“BANA”), manufactured a false promissory note 

(“the Note”) to represent a security interest as a mortgage on the 

Property. The Note was purportedly executed by Valeria Taveras 

in September 2006 and documented a promise to pay $960,000. Mr. 

and Mrs. Taveras allege that a BANA employee endorsed the fraudulent Note; an employee of appellee Servis One, Inc., d.b.a. BSI

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 3 of 16
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

Financial Services (“BSI”), executed a supporting affidavit with 

false statements about Mrs. Taveras’s signature on the note; and the 

Trust then used the false Note and affidavit to vacate the declaratory judgment. 

Mr. and Mrs. Taveras ultimately agreed to dismiss the state 

court declaratory judgment action. They allege that this decision 

was based on various false representations by the appellees that induced them to believe the Trust held a valid note and that the 

Taverases would therefore not succeed in the declaratory judgment 

action. Mr. and Mrs. Taveras dismissed the declaratory judgment 

action in March 2016, and the appellate court reversed the declaratory judgment. 

In April 2016, the Trust commenced a foreclosure action 

against Mr. and Mrs. Taveras in Florida state court, seeking to enforce the Note and foreclose on the Property. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n 

v. Taveras, No. 2016 CA 000916 MF (9th Cir. Ct. Fla. Apr. 1, 2016). 1

Mr. and Mrs. Taveras have raised multiple defenses, including that 

the Note is fraudulent and that Mrs. Taveras’s signature on the 

Note is forged. The state foreclosure case has been litigated extensively, including counterclaims, cross claims, discovery, motion 

practice, removal to federal court by the Taverases, and subsequent 

1 In July 2017, the Trust assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank, N.A., as trustee, 

who then took the place of the Trust as plaintiff in the state foreclosure case. 

U.S. Bank is not a party to this appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 4 of 16
22-11355 Opinion of the Court 5

remand to state court. The foreclosure proceeding is ongoing and, 

as represented at oral argument, is set for trial in November 2023.

In August 2019, the Taverases filed the first of three federal 

actions against the three appellees. Taveras v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 

6:19-cv-01469-EJK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2019). Mr. and Mrs. Taveras 

asserted claims for violations of federal and Florida RICO statutes, 

among other claims, and also sought a declaration that they were 

not liable on the Note. In May 2020, the district court dismissed 

that suit without prejudice on Colorado River grounds and directed 

the Taverases to wait until conclusion of the state foreclosure action to refile their case if appropriate. The Taverases did not appeal.

Notwithstanding that directive, Mr. and Mrs. Taveras commenced a second federal action against the Appellees in June 2020. 

Taveras v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 6:20-cv-00973-WWB-EJK (M.D. 

Fla. June 8, 2020). The second action was dismissed in September 

2020 without prejudice for failure to file a case management report. 

The Taverases did not appeal.

On January 27, 2021, Mr. and Mrs. Taveras commenced the 

underlying case, their third federal action. This case alleges claims 

for (1) fraud in the inducement related to the initial state court declaratory judgment action; (2) violation of the federal civil RICO 

statute; (3) violation of the Florida civil RICO statute; (4) violation 

of a Florida statute prohibiting the recording of false or fraudulent 

documents in official records; and (5) declaratory and injunctive relief. Like the first federal case, this third action recounts the 

Taverases’ purchase of the Property; the events of the 2014 state 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 5 of 16
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

declaratory judgment action, including the alleged fraudulent creation and use of the Note; and the assignment of the mortgage and 

Note. 

The appellees moved to dismiss the complaint, based in part 

on the argument that the district court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Colorado River. While the motions to dismiss were pending, Mr. and Mrs. Taveras moved for leave to amend 

the complaint. The proposed amended complaint provides some 

additional details and clarifies certain aspects of the original complaint, but both the original complaint and the proposed amended 

complaint involve the same core facts and issues. 

In November 2021, the magistrate judge entered a Report 

and Recommendation regarding the motions to dismiss and the 

motion for leave to amend the complaint. The magistrate judge 

concluded that (1) the third federal suit was substantially similar to 

the state foreclosure action; (2) abstention under Colorado River was 

warranted; and (3) the motion for leave to amend the complaint 

should be denied as futile, because the amendment would not affect the abstention analysis. The Taverases objected to the Report 

and Recommendation. 

Adopting in part the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court granted the motions to dismiss in part 

by staying the case under Colorado River until the conclusion of the 

state foreclosure case, but declining to dismiss the claims. The district court also denied the motion for leave to amend the complaint. The district court adopted most of the magistrate judge’s 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 6 of 16
22-11355 Opinion of the Court 7

findings regarding the similarity between the federal and state 

cases, the weight of each Colorado River factor, and the futility of 

the proposed amendments to the complaint. The district court reasoned that the validity of the Note is central to the claims in both 

the state and federal cases, and the claims are therefore substantially similar even though they are not identical. The district court 

reasoned that while the parties to the state and federal actions are 

not identical, they are substantially similar. The district court considered each of the Colorado River abstention factors and concluded 

that they weighed in favor of abstention. The district court determined that allowing Mr. and Mrs. Taveras leave to amend their 

complaint would not change the Colorado River analysis. 

The Taverases moved the district court to reconsider the stay 

and denial of leave to amend. The district court denied the motion 

for reconsideration, and this appeal followed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Colorado River for abuse of discretion. 

Jackson-Platts v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 727 F.3d 1127, 1133 (11th Cir. 

2013). “A district court will abuse its discretion if it makes an error 

of law or makes a clearly erroneous factual finding.” Id. 

Although we ordinarily review district court orders denying 

leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion, Andrx Pharms., 

Inc. v. Elan Corp., 421 F.3d 1227, 1236 (11th Cir. 2005), we review 

such decisions de novo when “the denial is based on a legal 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 7 of 16
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

determination that amendment would be futile,” Gonzalez v. City 

of Deerfield Beach, 549 F.3d 1331, 1332–33 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Pro se pleadings, such as those filed by Mr. and Mrs. Taveras, 

“are held to a less stringent standard” and should be “liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 

1998). 

DISCUSSION

I. Abstention Under Colorado River 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it abstained under Colorado River, pending conclusion of the related 

state court foreclosure action. 

Abstention is a determination that the district court “should 

abstain from exercising their jurisdiction.” Ambrosia Coal & Constr. 

Co. v. Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1327 (11th Cir. 2004). “Abstention from 

the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule.” 

Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 813. District courts have a duty to adjudicate 

the controversies before them, and abstention “is an extraordinary 

and narrow exception.” Id. (cleaned up). A pending state court case

ordinarily does not bar a federal case concerning the same dispute, 

and the potential for conflicting adjudications, standing alone, is 

not enough to justify abstention. Id. at 816–17. In limited and exceptional circumstances, certain principles of “wise judicial administration” do permit district courts to “dismiss a federal suit due to 

the presence of a concurrent state proceeding.” Id. at 818. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 8 of 16
22-11355 Opinion of the Court 9

As a threshold matter, Colorado River abstention allows a federal court to stay a case only “when federal and state proceedings 

involve substantially the same parties and substantially the same issues.” Ambrosia Coal, 368 F.3d at 1330. The issues and parties do not 

have to be identical to be substantially similar; if the standard required identical issues and parties, a party could easily circumvent 

abstention with creative pleading. Id. at 1329–30.

Once a court has determined that the proceedings involve 

substantially similar issues and parties, the court must weigh six 

factors to decide whether to abstain:

(1) whether one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction over property,

(2) the inconvenience of the federal forum,

(3) the potential for piecemeal litigation,

(4) the order in which the fora obtained 

jurisdiction,

(5) whether state or federal law will be 

applied, and 

(6) the adequacy of the state court to 

protect the parties’ rights.

Id. at 1331. Courts may also consider “the vexatious or reactive nature of either the federal or the state litigation” as part of their abstention inquiry. Id. (cleaned up).

These factors and considerations are not a “mechanical 

checklist,” and “the abstention inquiry must be ‘heavily weighted 

in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.’” Id. at 1332 (quoting Moses 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 9 of 16
10 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983)). 

No single factor is determinative, and the weight given to individual factors may vary from case to case. Id. “One factor alone can 

be the sole motivating reason for the abstention.” Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks & Sewer Bd., 374 F.3d 994, 997 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding 

that the federal and state proceedings involve substantially similar 

issues and parties, and that the Colorado River factors weigh in favor 

of abstention. 

A. Substantially Similar Proceedings

As to the threshold inquiry of substantial similarity, the issues are substantially similar, even though they are not identical. 

The claims in both the federal and state cases depend upon the validity of the Note and the existence of a lien on the Property. The 

federal action asks the court to declare that Valeria Taveras has no 

liability under the Note and to enjoin the appellees from enforcing 

the Note, and those same issues are at the heart of the state foreclosure case. 

The parties to both actions are also substantially similar. The 

state foreclosure action was initiated by the Trust; the Trust’s successor in interest has now been substituted for the Trust as the 

plaintiff, but the Trust remains a party as a counterclaim defendant. 

Mr. and Mrs. Taveras and BANA are defendants in the state case. 

BSI was previously joined as a third-party defendant in the state 

case, although BSI has since been dismissed. Mr. and Mrs. Taveras, 

the Trust, BANA, and BSI are all parties to the federal case. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 10 of 16
22-11355 Opinion of the Court 11

B. Colorado River Abstention Factors

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining 

that the Colorado River abstention factors, on balance, weigh in favor of abstention. The first and most compelling factor supporting 

abstention considers the order in which courts assume jurisdiction 

over property. See Ambrosia Coal, 368 F.3d at 1331. “[T]he court first 

assuming jurisdiction over property may exercise that jurisdiction 

to the exclusion of other courts.” Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 818. 

The nature of foreclosure litigation explains why this first 

factor weights in favor of abstention. A state foreclosure case is an 

action in rem: “a proceeding against the property ‘for the legal determination of the existence of the mortgage lien, the ascertainment of its extent, and the subjection to a sale of the estate pledged 

for its satisfaction.’” United States v. Begin, 160 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th 

Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Alvarado, 5 F.3d 1425, 1429 (11th 

Cir. 1993)). Thus, the state court assumed jurisdiction over the 

Property when the state foreclosure case began, nearly five years 

before this federal suit. 

The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in weighing this factor in favor of abstention, reasoning that even though 

the Taverases’ federal claims are broader than the state claims, the 

federal case cannot be resolved without making “legal conclusions 

that will directly affect the [P]roperty,” over which the state court 

already has jurisdiction.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding 

that the third Colorado River factor, avoidance of piecemeal 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 11 of 16
12 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

litigation, weighs in favor of abstention. This factor will not weigh 

in favor of abstention simply because there are concurrent state 

and federal proceedings that “will likely result in some unremarkable repetition of efforts and possibly some piece-by-piece decisionmaking.” Ambrosia Coal, 368 F.3d at 1333. “And this factor does not 

favor abstention when litigation is inevitably piecemeal.” JacksonPlatts, 727 F.3d at 1142 (cleaned up). Rather, this factor favors abstention only in “those cases [that] will likely lead to piecemeal litigation that is abnormally excessive or deleterious,” such as those 

raising “property-specific concerns.” Ambrosia Coal, 368 F.3d at 

1333.

Although the claims in the federal and state cases are not 

identical, inconsistent rulings regarding the Note and Property 

could create turmoil. And if the state court determines that the 

Note is valid and that the Property is subject to foreclosure, the 

Taverases will have no basis for pursuing the remaining claims in 

either forum, meaning that the state court has the potential to resolve all claims and that the concurrent proceedings are not “inevitably piecemeal.”

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

weighing the fourth Colorado River factor—the order in which the 

courts acquired jurisdiction and the relative progress of each case—

in favor of abstention. The state case was filed in April 2016, and

the federal case was not filed until January 2021. The district court 

did not comment on this factor, thus implicitly adopting the magistrate judge’s finding that the fourth factor supports abstention 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 12 of 16
22-11355 Opinion of the Court 13

since the state case was filed nearly five years before the federal 

case. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge expressly 

considered the relative progress of the two cases, but the case records clarify that the state case has progressed much further. The 

federal case is at the initial pleading stage and no discovery has occurred, whereas the state case has included extensive discovery, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and an upcoming 

trial setting in November 2023. See Ambrosia Coal, 368 F.3d at 1333 

(quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 21 (measuring the fourth factor 

not “exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in 

terms of how much progress has been made in the two actions”)).

The district court did not expressly address the fifth factor of 

whether state or federal law applies, and the magistrate judge 

weighed this factor in favor of abstention because Florida state law 

governs the majority of the Taverases’ claims. This factor supports 

abstention in cases involving complex questions of state law that 

are best left to state courts, and this factor weighs slightly in favor 

of abstention when a case involves only state law claims. See Noonan 

S., Inc. v. Cnty. of Volusia, 841 F.2d 380, 382 (11th Cir. 1988). However, in instances where a case includes both state and federal 

claims and both courts are capable of adjudicating both types of 

claims, this factor does not weigh for or against abstention. Ambrosia Coal, 368 F.3d at 1334. Here, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in implicitly adopting the magistrate judge’s finding that 

this factor supports abstention since almost all of the claims arise 

under Florida law. However, this factor should carry little weight 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 13 of 16
14 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

since the state law claims are not novel or complex, and both courts 

are capable of adjudicating them. 

Although the two remaining factors do not weigh in favor 

of abstention, they also do not weigh against it. The district court 

did not abuse its discretion in finding that the second Colorado River 

factor—the convenience of the federal forum—does not weigh for 

or against abstention because the federal and state courts are both 

located in Central Florida and are therefore equally convenient to 

the evidence and witnesses. The sixth factor “will only weigh in favor or against abstention when one of the fora is inadequate to protect a party’s rights,” id. at 1334, and the district court did not err 

in implicitly adopting the magistrate judge’s conclusion that neither forum is inadequate the protect the parties’ rights in this case. 

In sum, the district court did not err in weighing factors one, 

three, and four in favor of abstention or in finding that factors two 

and six do not weigh against abstention. The district court also did 

not abuse its discretion in weighing factor five in favor of abstention, although this factor offers only minimal support. The district 

court therefore did not abuse its discretion in staying the case under 

Colorado River. 

We may also consider “the vexatious or reactive nature of 

either the federal or the state litigation” as part of the abstention 

inquiry. Ambrosia Coal, 368 F.3d at 1331 (cleaned up). Here, the district court did not err in implicitly adopting the magistrate judge’s 

conclusion that this third federal action, which was filed in violation of a prior district court order, is vexatious and reactive. The

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 14 of 16
22-11355 Opinion of the Court 15

other factors are sufficient to support Colorado River abstention 

without this consideration, but the vexatious nature of the litigation does provide additional support for abstention. 

II. Denial of Motion for Leave to Amend

Next, Mr. and Mrs. Taveras assert that the district court 

erred in denying their motion to amend the complaint. “[A] district 

court may properly deny leave to amend the complaint . . . when 

such amendment would be futile.” Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 

F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2004). When the complaint as 

amended would still be dismissed, the district court may properly 

deny a motion for leave to amend as futile. Id. at 1263. 

Whether Mr. and Mrs. Taveras properly raised this issue on 

appeal is questionable, even in light of the liberal construction afforded pro se filings. They devoted minimal space to the issue in 

their briefings, their statements are conclusory, and they do not cite 

any authority to explain their position. Because the Taverases proceed pro se, we review the ruling out of an abundance of caution. 

The Taverases propose to make several amendments to their 

complaint, including refining elements of their claims and correcting or removing causes of action. The proposed amended complaint does not change the crux of the dispute (whether the Note 

is valid and encumbers the Property) and does not change the parties. The new claims (two under Florida state law and one under 

federal law) do not change the balance of federal and state law 

claims in a way that impacts the Colorado River analysis. The new 

claims arise from the same facts and, like the claims in the original 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 15 of 16
16 Opinion of the Court 22-11355

complaint, are fraud-based. Like the operative complaint, the proposed amended complaint makes claims that are inextricably connected to the Property and Note at issue in the state foreclosure 

case. Because Colorado River abstention would still be appropriate 

under the amended complaint, the district court did not err in 

denying the motion to amend as futile. 

CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the district court’s order staying this case until 

conclusion of the state court foreclosure case and denying the motion to amend the complaint. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11355 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024 Page: 16 of 16