Opinion ID: 547618
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Permissive Abstention.

Text: 18 The Howes also assert that the district court should have abstained under the doctrine of permissive abstention. 4 The Howes argue that, because there is a paucity of Louisiana jurisprudence on their lender liability cause of action, the federal court should show due respect to the Louisiana courts and allow them to develop this area of the law. The Howes argue that the district court erred in failing to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the defendants who did not file a proof of claim in the original bankruptcy proceeding. Therefore the district court also erred by failing to exercise permissive abstention over the other defendants. 5 Finally, the Howes assert principles of comity and judicial convenience. 19 Premier and Vaughan contend that, because the central issue in this litigation is the necessity of the federal court's protection of its own judgment, permissive abstention should not apply. Additionally, because the subject matter of the claims had been thoroughly contested in an adversarial context during the bankruptcy proceedings, Premier and Vaughan contend that federal court was the appropriate forum in which to determine the merits of the Howes' claims. 20 We do not gainsay the importance of state courts deciding state law issues. The decision to grant permissive abstention, however, lies within the discretion of the district court and we will not reverse that decision unless the district court clearly abused its discretion. 6 Premier was the chief creditor in the Howes' Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, and Premier's and Vaughan's claims were the only significant contested issues in those proceedings. Because of the close nexus between the bankruptcy court's earlier proceedings and the Howes' present action, we cannot find that the district court clearly abused its discretion by failing to abstain. 21