Opinion ID: 4196342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the state court proceedings can

Text: adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants. This factor concerns “whether the state court might be unable to enforce federal rights.” Id. at 845. If the state court “cannot adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants,” a Colorado River stay is inappropriate. R.R. St., 656 F.3d at 981. When it is clear “that the state court has authority to address the rights and remedies at issue” this factor may weigh in favor of a stay. Id. “[H]owever, this factor is more important when it weighs [against a stay].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no doubt that Montana state courts have the authority to hear condemnation actions brought under Montana law. See, e.g., Park Cty. ex rel. Paradise & Shields 16 MONTANORE MINERALS V. BAKIE Valley TV Dists. v. Adams, 100 P.3d 640 (Mont. 2004). Moreover, Montanore does not claim that the state court would lack jurisdiction over a condemnation action, or lack the power to enter any orders to protect its rights. Cf. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 26; Holder, 305 F.3d at 869 n.5. Montanore instead argues that the state court cannot adequately protect its rights because the state court refused to consider an alleged “Federal Land Policy Management Act defect” (federal defect) when considering the validity of the Subject Claims. However, there is no reason to believe that Montanore could not have properly raised this argument in state court. The state court refused to consider the argument because although it was based on Defendants’ alleged failure to make a filing and pay a fee in 2005, Montanore did not raise the argument in state court until 2016, nine years after Montanore initiated suit on claim validity, and three years after the state court held that the Subject Claims were valid. Before the state court declined to consider the claimed federal defect in 2016, the district court also refused to consider the claim, and we affirm the district court’s decision. See Part II, infra. Thus, we cannot agree that the state court could not adequately protect Montanore’s federal rights because it refused to consider a late-raised argument that was properly denied in federal court. This factor favors a stay.