1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jennifer Zonis and Todd Zonis,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Steven Allen, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-01728-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss or Stay filed by defendant Steven 

Allen (Doc. 13). Defendant Allen is seeking to dismiss arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims 

herein are compulsory counterclaims which they were required to bring in the closely 

related case of Allen v. Zonis, No. 15-2-15656-O KNT, currently pending in the Superior 

Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King. Alternatively, 

Defendant is seeking a stay of this action under the Colorado River doctrine, to allow for 

completion of the Washington State action. Finally, if the Court denies dismissal and 

denies a stay, Defendant argues for dismissal based upon lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion in all respects. 

 Not long after the filing of Defendant’s motion, the Washington State Court heard 

oral argument on the Zonis’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The 

Court denied that motion. (Doc. 18-1 at 14-15). During argument, the Zonis’ counsel at 

the time expressly conceded, as Defendant stresses in his reply, that “[i]f there is 

Case 2:15-cv-01728-DJH Document 21 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

jurisdiction, [she] would agree that [the] compulsory counterclaim rule applies[.]” (Id. at 

7). Despite this concession, in this action, through different counsel, Mr. and Mrs. Zonis 

persist in arguing that their claims cannot be compulsory counterclaims in the 

Washington lawsuit. The Court is not so persuaded, especially in light of the Zonis’ prior 

concession in the State Court action. 

 Additionally, in the State Court action, Zonis’ counsel, taking a “common sense 

perspective[,]” and recognizing that the claims are pending in two different courts, agreed 

that “logically [it] makes sense for one court to take jurisdiction and the other one to step 

back and allow that to happen.” (Doc. 18-1 at 6). Admittedly, this statement was made 

in the context of forum non conveniens, and counsel was urging the opposite. It made 

“more sense” for the claims to proceed in this Arizona District Court rather than in 

Washington. (Id.). 

 Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2), the Court takes judicial notice of the status of 

the pending Washington State case as reflected on the Washington Courts website, 

http://dw.courts.wa.gov;index.cfm, last visited on July 15, 2016. According to the case 

summary for the Allen v. Zonis, 15-2-15656-0, Mr. and Mrs. Zonis made a motion to 

continue, with which the Allens agreed. On June 28, 2016, evidently based upon the 

foregoing, the Court ordered that the trial of that case be continued to what appears to be 

early 2017. The Washington Court also issued an order amending the case schedule. 

 Given that the Washington Court has held that it has personal jurisdiction over Mr. 

and Mrs. Zonis, and their concession that their claims herein are compulsory 

counterclaims under Washington law, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss, 

but it does so without prejudice. Practically, proceeding in this way also avoids needless 

duplication of judicial effort and avoids the very real risk of inconsistent findings and 

perhaps judgments. 

 Having found that dismissal is proper on this basis the Court denies as moot 

Defendant’s motion insofar as it is seeking alternative relief in the form of a Colorado 

River stay or dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Case 2:15-cv-01728-DJH Document 21 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay (Doc. 13). This motion is GRANTED without 

prejudice to renew to the extent it is seeking dismissal because the claims herein are 

compulsory counterclaims. In all other respects, this motion is DENIED. 

 The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate this action. 

Dated this 18th day of July, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01728-DJH Document 21 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 3