Boswinkle v. Navajo Express, Inc., 1:20-cv-03325

Plaintiffs Timothy Boswinkle and Michael Gates are trucking "Lease-Operators" who sued Navajo Express in a state-court Declaratory Action (challenging two provisions of a 2020 lease: a "Loser Pays" indemnity for attorney fees and a Class Waiver) and in a separate state-court Wage Action (claims under Colorado and federal wage laws and related state causes of action).
Navajo removed the Wage Action to federal court and asserted a counterclaim seeking a federal declaratory judgment that the 2020 Contract (including the Loser Pays and Class Waiver provisions) is valid and bars class/collective litigation.
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Navajo’s counterclaim under the Brillhart/Mhoon doctrine as duplicative of the pending state Declaratory Action and asked the court to stay the federal Wage Action pending resolution of the state case.
The magistrate judge applied the String Cheese (stay) factors, found several factors favored a stay (avoid duplicative discovery, potential inconsistency, court convenience), but declined to stay the entire federal action until the state court finally resolves the Declaratory Action.
Instead, the court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the stay: it stayed the federal Wage Action only until Judge Martinez resolves the motion to dismiss the counterclaim (i.e., the question whether the counterclaim should remain in federal court), vacated a scheduling conference, and ordered the parties to notify chambers within three business days of that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay the federal Wage Action while a related state Declaratory Action proceeds	A stay avoids duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings, and wasted litigation costs; Brillhart/Mhoon supports deferring to the state proceeding	A stay is prejudicial, won’t meaningfully reduce costs, and Plaintiffs’ damages would continue to accrue; federal counterclaim is proper	Partial stay granted: proceedings stayed only until Judge Martinez rules on Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Navajo’s counterclaim (not stayed through final resolution of the state court action)
Whether Brillhart/Mhoon warrants dismissal of Navajo’s federal counterclaim as a “mirror” of the state action	The counterclaim duplicates the state Declaratory Action and should be dismissed under Brillhart/Mhoon	Brillhart/Mhoon does not require dismissal; counterclaim may properly proceed in federal court	Court did not decide dismissal; that issue remains for Judge Martinez to resolve (stay is conditioned on that resolution)

St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169 (10th Cir. 1979) (federal courts may take notice of related proceedings in other courts)
Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942) (district courts have discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to decline declaratory relief when a parallel state action exists)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979 (10th Cir. 1994) (articulates factors guiding the Brillhart discretionary inquiry)
United States v. City of Las Cruces, 289 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2002) (discusses the Brillhart/Mhoon framework and district court discretion)
Oldershaw v. DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (D. Colo. 2017) (distinguishes standards and discovery implications between FLSA collective actions and state-law class proceedings)