United States v. Schurkman
728 F.3d 129
2d Cir.2013Background
- Manne settled a federal CERCLA action via a consent decree requiring payment equal to the appraised value of property, with appraisal to be selected from at least three US-listed appraisers and deemed unreviewable by the decree.
- An appraiser (DeWan & Schott) valued the Property at $1,290,000; Manne challenged this appraisal in federal court but the district court and appellate court kept the value unreviewable under the decree.
- Manne later sued the appraiser in New York Supreme Court alleging fraud and related claims; the United States moved to enjoin the state court action under the All Writs Act and Anti-Injunction Act.
- The district court enjoined the state court action, relying on the in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception to § 2283 due to the Consent Decree’s enforcement provisions.
- The Second Circuit vacated the injunction, holding the in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception does not apply here and that in-personam state actions duplicative of a federal judgment normally may proceed free of federal injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may enjoin state court proceedings | Government: allowed under All Writs Act and § 2283 in aid of jurisdiction | Manne: in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception does not apply; in rem-like circumstances not present | No; injunction improper and vacated |
| Whether the in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception covers this case | Government: consent decree gave jurisdiction to interpret/enforce, justifying injunction | Manne: exception limited to protecting a res; not applicable for in-personam state claims | Not applicable |
| Whether Baldwin-United extraordinary circumstances justify enjoining the state action | Government: Baldwin-United rationale applies to protect enforcement of the consent decree | Manne: circumstances here are not the exceptional class; Baldwin-United should not be extended | Not satisfied; Baldwin-United not controlling |
| What is the proper scope of consideration for potential preclusion of a state judgment | Government: a state judgment could threaten the federal decree’s enforcement | Manne: preclusion consequences are for the second court to determine; federal court should not decide | Not enough to permit injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldwin-United Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985) (exceptional MDL-like circumstances justify in aid of jurisdiction)
- Wyly v. Weiss, 697 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2012) (in aid of jurisdiction generally not available to enjoin in personam state actions)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (S. Ct. 2011) (relitigation exception does not justify enjoining state actions on these facts)
- Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977) (in aid of jurisdiction may track res-based limits, not broad in personam actions)
- Toucey v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118 (1941) (historic in rem exception recognized in the in aid of jurisdiction analysis)
- Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281 (1970) (duality of state-federal system; avoid enlarging exceptions to § 2283)