Background

• JKG Fitness, Inc. sued Brown & Brown of Colorado, Inc. and its Fitness Insurance division after a fire destroyed a Planet Fitness gym, alleging inadequate insurance procurement and misrepresentation.
• Brown & Brown moved to stay the federal proceedings under the Colorado River doctrine, citing two related state-court actions: a subrogation suit by JKG's insurer against the gym building's owners, and a separate suit by JKG's subsidiary against the building owners (but not against Brown & Brown).
• Brown & Brown argued these state proceedings were likely dispositive and highly relevant to the issues in federal court.
• JKG opposed the stay, arguing that Brown & Brown failed to show the extraordinary circumstances needed for a Colorado River stay.
• The court evaluated whether the state litigation would fully resolve all issues before the federal court, a key requirement under Colorado River abstention.
• The court ultimately found that the parties and claims in the state actions were sufficiently distinct from those in the federal action, casting doubt that the state courts would resolve the federal dispute.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (establishes doctrine for federal court abstention in favor of parallel state court proceedings)
• Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (sets standards and factors for when abstention may apply under Colorado River doctrine)
• Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908 (Ninth Circuit case clarifying the requirement for substantial similarity and full resolution of federal claims by state proceedings)
• R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966 (Ninth Circuit factors for Colorado River abstention applicability)
• United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194 (further explaining the requirements and limitations for Colorado River abstention)