Opinion ID: 183689
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Likelihood of Conflict with State Proceeding

Text: There is one additional reason why abstention is inappropriate in this case. As we have cautioned before, a federal court may abstain only where conflict with state administrative processes cannot be avoided through careful conduct of the federal case: The abstention issue posed here is whether the litigation necessarily implies an involvement in the administration of the internal affairs of the [state regulatory body] so unseemly for a federal court as to encroach on principles of comity and federalism. As we see the issue, the word necessarily is of critical importance.... This means to us that a federal judge, while being ... sensitive to important state interests and ... wary of intruding in internal state affairs ..., will also endeavor to see if the legitimate objectives of the litigation can be pursued without treading on those state interests and internal affairs. If they cannot be so pursued, abstention should be invoked; but if the case can so be managed that fears of unseemly intrusion can be dispelled, abstention should be refused. Planned Parenthood League of Mass. v. Bellotti, 868 F.2d 459, 464 (1st Cir.1989). Intrusion on state affairs is by no means inevitable here. This is not a case where review is, in effect, sought for a final state administrative decision in federal rather than state court, effectively creat[ing] a dual review structure for adjudicating a state's specific regulatory actions. Vaquería Tres Monjitas, 587 F.3d at 474; see also Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n v. Montgomery Cnty., Md., 33 F.3d 52 (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished table decision) (applying Burford abstention to RCRA citizen suit where it was merely ... a collateral attack on state agency's permitting decisions). Instead, Chico's suit seeks an order enjoining further releases of contaminants at the filling station and requiring defendant Sol to take remedial action, as well as the imposition of civil penalties. None of these steps requires that the court directly review actions taken by the Puerto Rico EQB, which, in any event, has issued no final order. Indeed, the fact that the EQB has taken so little action over the past seventeen years suggests that conflict with the EQB's proceedings is unlikely. We might be more concerned if we were faced with an aggressive and comprehensive state enforcement proceeding on the verge of a final order, but that simply is not the case here. Regardless, should the threat of conflict arise, we see no reason why federal court relief could not be structured so as to avoid interference with the EQB proceeding. See Coll. Park Holdings, LLC v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 239 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1328 (N.D.Ga.2002) (noting that documentation of agency's institutional attitudes and remediation expectations produced in the course of an administrative proceeding would permit the federal court to fashion appropriate non-conflicting relief); cf. Francisco Sánchez, 572 F.3d at 13 (concluding that threat of duplicative or conflicting remedies in parallel RCRA enforcement suits could not justify short circuit[ing] the federal suit on jurisdictional grounds at an early stage).