Opinion ID: 2967593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: in the Federal Contract Action does not result in a greater possibility of inconsistent results than are otherwise inevitable, given the current procedural posture of this litigation.7 Indeed, it appears that the dis- ____________________________________________________________ upon Clark's assurances regarding consolidation in deciding to abstain, we must address whether abstention is appropriate based upon the cur- rent posture of the state court actions. Cf. Lumen Constr., Inc. v. Brant Constr. Co., 780 F.2d 691, 697 n.4 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding that the reviewing court in a Colorado River abstention case is not limited to the information available at the time of the district court's order and opinion; instead, the reviewing court should look at the total situation as it stands at the time of the appeal). 7 In light of our conclusion that the State Lien Action is not parallel to the Federal Contract Action, we need not address whether the possibility of inconsistent results between those actions justifies abstention. We 10 trict court could obtain jurisdiction over the subcontractors if Clark chose to implead the contractors pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14.8 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a) (permitting a defendant to implead a person who is or may be liable to the defendant); 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(b) (the district courts shall not have [supplemental] jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against per- sons made parties under Rule 14 . . . (emphasis added)). Accord- ingly, the fact that the subcontractors are not currently parties in the Federal Contract Action does not weigh in favor of abstention. Finally, the district court stated that abstention was appropriate because decisions in the concurrent federal and state suits for breach of contract might render different outcomes . . . . (J.A. at 424.) The threat of different outcomes in these breach of contract actions, how- ever, is not the type of inconsistency against which abstention is ____________________________________________________________ note, however, that the threat of piecemeal litigation would not be increased were we to conclude that the State Lien Action is parallel to the Federal Contract Action because, although the subcontractors have been joined as defendants in the State Lien Action, this joinder is insuffi- cient to enforce the subcontractors' claims under Virginia's mechanic's lien statute. Isle of Wight Materials Co. v. Cowling Bros., 431 S.E.2d 42, 44 (Va. 1993) (Merely being named as a defendant in an enforcement action of another lienor is not the equivalent of either filing an indepen- dent suit or intervening in the suit of another.). Thus, under Virginia law, the subcontractors will have to bring their enforcement actions sepa- rately or join as plaintiffs in Clark's enforcement action. Id. Accordingly, given the current posture of the case, the threat of inconsistent results would not be alleviated by abstention, even if the State Lien Action and the Federal Contract Action were parallel proceedings. 8 At oral argument, Clark contended that Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 11 would bar it from impleading its subcontractors. We disagree. Gannett currently has a breach of contract action pending against Clark, and, if Gannett is able to establish any breach by Clark, appropriate sub- contractors may be liable in whole or in part to Clark for that breach. As Clark concedes, at this stage, it is impossible to determine which subcon- tractors could be found liable for any breach established by Gannett. Thus, Rule 11 would permit Clark to implead all of its subcontractors on the basis that each may be liable to Clark if it is found liable to Gan- nett. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a). 11 designed to protect, in that Gannett and Clark are both parties to the Federal and State Contract Actions; thus, res judicata effect will be given to whichever judgment is rendered first. Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 713. Insofar as abstention does not lessen the threat of ineffi- ciency or inconsistent results beyond those inherent in the duplicative nature of these proceedings and there is nothing in the nature of breach of contract actions that renders the fact of duplicative proceed- ings exceptionally problematic, the district court abused its discretion by determining that the possibility of piecemeal litigation weighs in favor of abstention. 2. Whether State Or Federal Law Is Implicated And Whether The State Court Proceedings Are Adequate To Protect The Parties' Rights The district court also found that the presence of state law and the fact that the state court proceedings were adequate to protect Clark's and Gannett's rights weighed in favor of abstention. The district court stated that there is nothing special in the relief requested that requires that the case be litigated in federal court, noting that Virginia law alone governs. (J.A. at 425, 426 (citation omitted).) Although the district court is correct insofar as it suggests that [f]ederal courts abstain out of deference to the paramount interests of another sovereign, and the concern is with principles of comity and federalism, Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 723, the Supreme Court has made clear that the presence of state law and the adequacy of state proceedings can be used only in rare circumstances to justify Colo- rado River abstention. See Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 26. Instead, these factors typically are designed to justify retention of