Opinion ID: 548469
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Inadequacy of the State Court Proceedings to Protect the Federal Litigant's Rights

Text: 41 The district court also found this factor unhelpful. Madonna argues that while the state court is an adequate forum for the resolution of all the issues raised by the parties, [t]he federal forum, on the other hand, is an inadequate forum; due to its limited jurisdiction, it is incapable of providing the parties with an economical and comprehensive resolution of this matter. 42 In stating that the federal forum is inadequate, Madonna does not correctly apply this factor. This factor involves the state court's adequacy to protect federal rights, not the federal court's adequacy to protect state rights. See Cone, 460 U.S. at 26, 103 S.Ct. at 942. In addition, it appears that this Circuit has not applied this factor against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, only in favor of it. The Second Circuit, however, has stated that the possibility that the state court proceeding might adequately protect the interests of the parties is not enough to justify the district court's deference to the state action. This factor, like choice of law, is more important when it weighs in favor of federal jurisdiction. Bethlehem Contracting Co. v. Lehrer/McGovern, Inc., 800 F.2d 325, 328 (2d Cir.1986). Thus, this factor is of little or no weight here; unhelpful is an apt characterization.