Defendant has moved to dismiss the amended complaint, relying on principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and upon mootness and abstention doctrines. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. Defendant's reliance upon the principles of claim and issue preclusion is misplaced. As DiMarco thereafter settled, it is apparent that this issue was not fully and finally litigated in the state courts. At best, any finding made concerning federal constitutional issues is too ambiguous to be accorded preclusive effect.
Defendant similarly misapprehends the scope of the various abstention doctrines.
There is no unsettled question of state law at issue here. Abstention is simply not an option under these circumstances. Finally, as noted above, defendant is correct in that plaintiffs' objections to the former nine-district plan are now moot. Plaintiffs may pursue this theory. An Order follows.