988 F.3d 1194
9th Cir.2021Background:
- The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted an Amended Bay-Delta water quality plan in Dec. 2018 that the United States says impairs operation of the federal New Melones Dam.
- On March 28, 2019 the United States filed simultaneous suits in federal and California state court, pleading identical CEQA-based claims in both and later (June 2019) adding an intergovernmental-immunity (constitutional) claim in the federal suit.
- The federal district court declined Pullman abstention but, invoking Colorado River, issued a partial stay: it stayed the CEQA claims (state-law) and allowed the federal intergovernmental-immunity claim to proceed.
- The United States appealed the partial Colorado River stay to the Ninth Circuit; the Board did not cross-appeal the Pullman denial.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded partial Colorado River stays are generally impermissible (except in rare forum-shopping cases) and reversed the partial stay, remanding with instructions to allow all federal claims to proceed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may issue a partial Colorado River stay (stay overlapping state-law claims but proceed on distinct federal claim) | Partial stays are improper; the federal court must exercise jurisdiction over its full case; Colorado River requires state proceedings to resolve the entire federal litigation | Partial stay permissible when state and federal claims overlap and an additional federal claim remains; concerns about resource conservation and avoiding duplication | Ninth Circuit: Partial Colorado River stays generally impermissible; district court abused its discretion here; full stay only allowed in rare cases with clear forum shopping |
| Whether the U.S. engaged in forum shopping by adding the intergovernmental-immunity claim after filing | No forum shopping: federal and state suits were filed the same day; the U.S. informed both courts and reasonably added the federal claim after the Board moved to dismiss | Adding a federal claim can be gamesmanship to avoid state adjudication and circumvent Colorado River | Held: No clear-cut forum shopping here (short delay; simultaneous filings); forum-shopping exception not met |
| Whether Pullman abstention justified staying resolution of the federal constitutional claim | Federal court correctly declined Pullman and should not have stayed constitutional claim | Board: Pullman could justify abstention and stay of federal constitutional issue pending state-law resolution | Ninth Circuit: Cannot affirm on Pullman because Board did not cross-appeal; Pullman would have required staying the federal claim, which would enlarge Board's judgment—court refused to adopt Pullman here |
| Whether the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the partial stay | Appealable under Moses H. Cone / Cohen exception because stay conclusively resolved Colorado River question and would be unreviewable after final judgment | Finality concerns because partial stay leaves some federal litigation ongoing | Held: Court has jurisdiction under Moses H. Cone/Cohen exception to review Colorado River stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (establishes limited doctrine permitting stay/dismissal of federal suit when exceptional circumstances justify yielding to parallel state proceedings)
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (clarifies Colorado River standards and appellate finality via Cohen exception)
- Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1993) (requires confidence that parallel state proceedings will resolve the entire federal litigation)
- Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (vacating Colorado River stay where proceedings were not parallel and state court adjudication would not resolve all federal issues)
- R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (enumerates Colorado River factors and explains application)
- Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (Pullman abstention doctrine: federal courts may defer federal constitutional questions pending state court resolution of uncertain state law)