T.K. v. Stanley, 3:16-cv-05506

Plaintiffs (T.K. et al.) sued in state court (T.K. I) for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of mandatory reporting laws arising from alleged sexual abuse by a school bus driver; some plaintiffs are minors.
Plaintiffs later filed this federal § 1983 action against Defendant Frederick Stanley and others; Defendant moved to dismiss originally on res judicata/claim-splitting grounds and was denied because the state-court judgment was not then final.
Defendant moved to stay or dismiss under the Colorado River abstention doctrine after a partial summary judgment in T.K. I that disposed of key factual issues (notably whether the minors were abused) and after Defendant had been dismissed from T.K. I for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court ordered supplemental briefing and concluded that resolution of T.K. I will almost certainly have preclusive effect on the federal claims (res judicata/privity considerations), making T.K. I a parallel action for Colorado River purposes.
Applying the Colorado River balancing factors, the Court found strong reasons to stay (avoid piecemeal litigation, progress made in state court, forum shopping concerns) while noting that the federal-law factor favored federal adjudication and that the state forum was adequate to protect federal rights.
Order: Court granted Defendant’s motion and stayed and administratively closed the federal case pending final resolution of T.K. I (stay is appealable as a final order).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parallel state action exists under Colorado River	T.K. I is not final; res judicata does not presently bar the federal suit	T.K. I will be dispositive and thus is parallel; federal case should be stayed	T.K. I is parallel because its resolution will almost certainly preclude the federal action
Whether the court should stay under Colorado River balancing	Federal forum appropriate; if doctrine applies, a stay (not dismissal) is proper	Abstention warranted to conserve resources and avoid duplicative adjudication	Stay granted after balancing factors (piecemeal, progress in state court, forum shopping weigh for stay)
Whether Washington courts are adequate to protect § 1983 rights	State court omission of § 1983 claims makes state forum inadequate	State courts can hear § 1983 claims; omission was Plaintiffs’ choice	State forum is adequate; factor favors stay
Whether Plaintiffs engaged in forum shopping	Plaintiffs filed federal suit after state summary-judgment motion and conceded lack of service in state court	Plaintiffs dispute characterization	Court finds circumstances indicate forum shopping to avoid adverse state-court rulings

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (framework for abstention when parallel state litigation exists)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (multi-factor balancing and weight in favor of exercising federal jurisdiction)
Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (definition of parallelism and Colorado River threshold inquiry)
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1993) (parallelism and substantial doubt doctrine)
Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1989) (Colorado River factors and forum-shopping factor)
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Madonna, 914 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1990) (appealability of Colorado River stay and balancing guidance)
R.R. Street & Co., Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (piecemeal litigation concern under Colorado River)
Am. Int’l Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1988) (money damages not the res implicated in Colorado River)
Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1980) (full faith and credit and applying state preclusion law in federal court)