Background

• Alaqua engaged the Taylor Firm Defendants to recover delinquent HOA assessments from Acosta; they sued Acosta in state court to foreclose a lien or obtain a money judgment.
• Alaqua later replaced the Taylor Firm Defendants with Gustino Defendants to litigate the State Action.
• Acosta filed a federal lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida against the defendants arising from the collection actions.
• Acosta’s amended complaint asserts Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims, plus FDCPA and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act claims against Gustino.
• The district court dismissed via Colorado River abstention to stay/resume the state action; Acosta appeals arguing the federal and state actions are not parallel.
• The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the actions are not parallel and remanding; no ruling on other issues

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (abstention is an extraordinary, narrow exception; required parallelism of cases)
• TranSouth Fin. Corp. v. Bell, 149 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 1998) (review for abuse of discretion when dismissing under Colorado River)
• Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Pages Morales, 368 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2004) (abstention requires proper application of law; misapplication is error)
• Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal court should adjudicate core issues absent compelling reasons to abstain)
• Huon v. Johnson & Bell, Ltd., 657 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2011) (test for parallel proceedings balancing factors; substantial doubt counsels against abstention)
• AAR Int’l, Inc. v. Nimelias Enters. S.A., 250 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2001) (parallelism hinges on substantially similar parties and issues)