Court Opinion

ID: 9501961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:39:44.273536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:28.531097
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join Judge Holloway’s opinion but add a few words to express skepticism that the district court will be able to state a proper ground for the attorney-fee award.
The Appellees sought attorney fees on the ground that the suit was frivolous and vexatious. As I understand their brief, however, the “vexatious” ground is dependent on the complaint having been frivolous. I will therefore address only whether the complaint was frivolous.
Perhaps the district court determined that the complaint was frivolous because there was obviously no federal jurisdiction. But it was incorrect in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and even though we hold that it was proper for the district court to abstain under the Colorado River doctrine, I do not think that the contrary view is a frivolous one.
The other alternative is that the district court determined that the complaint was frivolous on the merits. But such a justification for the attorney-fee award would be inconsistent with Colorado River abstention. If the claims are frivolous, then they can be decided readily, the inconvenience of any possible piecemeal litigation is minimal, and there would be scant reason for abstention.