Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 12-60427-CIV-ZLOCH CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CCA PROPERTIES OF AMERICA, LLC, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, Defendant. / THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte and upon Defendants Motion For Abstention And Stay Of Proceedings Alternatively, Motion To Dismiss (DE 13). The Court has carefully reviewed said Motion, the entire court file and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The above-styled cause was initiated by Plaintiffs with the filing of a Complaint (DE 1) against Defendant City of Pembroke Pines. Plaintiffs are property owners seeking to construct a federal ORDER STAYING ACTION

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility on their property, located in the city of Southwest Ranches, FL. It is

the position of Plaintiffs that Defendant City of Pembroke Pines is obligated to provide water and sewer service to said facility, despite its being located entirely outside the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Pembroke Pines. In their Amended Complaint (DE 7), Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory Act, for relief pursuant of the to the Federal to Equal

Declaratory

Judgment

violation

right

Protection pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as various state law

Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 2 of 7

violations. The above-styled cause is one of two actions involving similar claims which were filed between the Parties. The other case has been

filed in Florida state court. See DE 13, Ex. A. The discussion below regarding the question of this Courts continued exercise of

jurisdiction over the above-styled cause will be assisted by stating the background of certain of the aforementioned actions. The action styled City of Pembroke Pines v. Corrections

Corporation of America, Case No. 12-7337(25) (hereinafter the Florida action), was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, on March 14, 2012. It involves substantially the same Parties and issues as those in the above-styled cause. This being the case, the Court must undertake an abstention analysis to determine whether it should continue to exercise

jurisdiction over the above-styled cause.

See Ambrosia Coal and

Construction Co., v. Pages Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (Colorado River analysis is applicable as a threshold matter when federal and state proceedings involve substantially the same parties and substantially the same issues.) Additionally, by the instant Motion (DE 13), Defendant asks the court to abstain and to stay this matter pending resolution of the related and parallel state court proceeding.

Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 3 of 7

B.

Colorado River Abstention

The Court notes that, although federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction whose jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged, once said jurisdiction is established there is a virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. V. United States, 424 Generally, as between state and federal

U.S. 800, 817 (1976).

courts, the rule is that the pendency of an action in state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction. Id. (quoting McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 282 (1910)). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, such concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts dictates that the federal court weigh considerations of [w]ise judicial

administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation. Id. (quoting Kerotest

Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)). In considering whether Colorado River abstention is appropriate, the Court must weigh six factors that have been catalogued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: (1) whether one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction over property, (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) the potential for piecemeal litigation, (4) the order in which the fora obtained jurisdiction, (5) whether state or federal law will be applied, and (6) the adequacy of the state court to protect the parties rights. Ambrosia Coal and Construction Co., v. Pages Morales, 368 F.3d 3

Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 4 of 7

1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).

When weighing these factors, the

Court notes that [n]o one factor is necessarily determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the

obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counseling against that exercise is required. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818-19; see also Moses H. Cone Meml Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983) (The weight to be given to any one factor may vary greatly from case to case, depending on the particular setting of the case.). Turning to the aforementioned factors, the Court finds that the first two are inapplicable because there is no property at issue over which the Court would assume jurisdiction, and no party has argued that continued litigation in the Southern District of Florida is inconvenient. When considering the third factor, the

Court finds that the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation weighs strongly in favor of abstention in the above-styled cause.

Litigating the very same issues in parallel actions invites the potential for inconsistent rulings and is, in every practical sense, an inefficient use of scarce judicial resources. As to the fourth factor, the Court notes that the Supreme Court clarified that, despite the somewhat misleading phrasing in Colorado River, this factor should not be measured exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms of how much

Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 5 of 7

progress has been made in the . . . actions.

Ambrosia Coal, 368 The above-

F.3d at 1333 (quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 21)).

styled cause was filed approximately one week before the Florida action.1 Solely on this basis, the Florida state court has entered Consequently, both actions remain in an Accordingly, this fourth factor

a stay in that action.

early stage of the litigation.

does not weigh in favor of or against abstention. Turning to a consideration of the law to be applied, the Court notes that the Eleventh Circuit has indicated that this factor is a question of whether state or federal law applies, and if state law applies, whether disposition of the case involves a complex question of state law which would be better left to a state court. See id. at 1334. Because the Amended Complaint (DE 7) concerns six

state law claims, the Court notes that the application of state law will predominate also in this case, as compared to federal of law.

Plaintiffs

posit

that

the

responsibility

Florida

municipalities to provide water/sewer service to properties outside the boundaries of the municipality, where no contract for service exists, and the municipality has not held itself out as a public

Defendant City of Pembroke Pines voted at a regular commission meeting held on March 7, 2012, to direct its counsel to file a declaratory judgment action in state court, essentially to seek a declaration as to whether the City is obligated to provide water and sewer service to the Plaintiffs property. Presumably in anticipation of the Citys imminent filing in state court, Plaintiffs filed this action in federal court. 5

Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 6 of 7

utility, is a peculiarly local concern.

The Court agrees.

Finally, regarding the adequacy of the state courts to protect the parties rights, the Court notes that [t]his factor will only weigh in favor or against abstention when one of the fora is inadequate to protect a partys rights. Id. Where the federal

court is just as capable of protecting the parties rights as the state forum, this factor is neutral with regard to abstention. Id. Accordingly, this sixth factor does not weigh in favor of or

against abstention. Upon consideration of the aforementioned factors, the Court finds that abstention pursuant to Colorado River is appropriate in the above-styled cause. In light of the potential for piecemeal

litigation in conjunction with the fact that the case predominantly involves issues of Florida state law, the Court finds that the above-styled cause exhibits the exceptional circumstances which warrant abstention under the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit. Additionally, although it is not

expressly mentioned as one of the factors to be considered, the Court finds that wise judicial administration dictates against exercising jurisdiction over an action which is largely duplicative in nature. Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. In so far as it seeks abstention and a stay of the 6

Case 0:12-cv-60427-WJZ Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2013 Page 7 of 7

proceedings in the above styled cause, Defendants Motion For Abstention And Stay Of Proceedings Alternatively, Motion To Dismiss (DE 13) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and 2. The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby STAYED in

that this Court is abstaining from exercising its jurisdiction over the same pending the resolution of the related state court action; 3. The Clerk of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida is hereby DIRECTED to mark the abovestyled action closed for statistical purposes; 4. The Parties are hereby DIRECTED to notify the Court

immediately upon any settlement in the above-styled cause or upon resolution of the related state action; and 5. This Order shall not prejudice the rights of either party

to this litigation. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 2013.

WILLIAM J. ZLOCH United States District Judge Copies furnished: All Counsel of Record