Opinion ID: 674660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order Granting the Tribes' Motion for a Stay under Pullman

Text: 60 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291 and 1292(a)(1) to hear an interlocutory appeal of a district court's order granting a stay pursuant to the Pullman abstention doctrine. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 9 & n. 8, 103 S.Ct. at 933 & n. 8; Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715 n. 2, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 1296 n. 2, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962); Moses v. Kinnear, 490 F.2d 21, 24 (9th Cir.1974). We review for abuse of discretion. Partington, 880 F.2d at 120; C-Y Dev. Co. v. City of Redlands, 703 F.2d 375, 377 (9th Cir.1983). 61 Pullman abstention is appropriate when (1) the case touches on a sensitive area of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not enter unless no alternative to its adjudication is open, (2) constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a definite ruling on the state issue would terminate the controversy, and (3) the possible determinative issue of state law is uncertain. Cinema Arts, Inc. v. County of Clark, 722 F.2d 579, 580 (9th Cir.1983); Canton v. Spokane Sch. Dist., 498 F.2d 840, 845 (9th Cir.1974). 62 Applying this test to determine whether a stay should be granted under Pullman, the district court found, 63 the issues raised by the Tribes involving water use touch upon sensitive areas of social policy. The jurisdictional questions arise under both state and federal law, and resolution of the state law questions could obviate the need to address the federal constitutional issues.... Finally, the court finds that the particular statutes at issue have not been interpreted in the context of the circumstances presented here and that the ultimate outcome concerning their interpretation is in doubt. 64 We agree with these findings. The issue of Montana's regulation of water usage touches upon important state issues. In their state complaint, the Tribes assert state jurisdictional arguments potentially dispositive of the federal issues, and whether the Tribes can win on their state law claims is uncertain. See Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 236, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 2326-27, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984). 65 Simonich makes no argument with regard to the above-stated test. Nor does he cite any case interpreting the particular state statutes as applied to the present circumstances. See Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 278 n. 8, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 1111 n. 8, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979). Rather, he argues the district court should have abstained under Younger, and, therefore, should have dismissed the federal case entirely rather than grant a stay under Pullman. 66 We reject this argument. As we stated previously, we do not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the district court's order denying Younger abstention; and, in considering Simonich's petition for a writ of mandamus, we cannot say the district court clearly erred by refusing to abstain. 67 The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the Tribes' motion for a stay under Pullman.