Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
John J. KRONDES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Bank of America Corporation, successor to Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“Mers”), Jay Bray, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.1
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant John J. Krondes appeals from a June 14, 2018 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pauley, J.), dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Colorado River abstention doctrine and for improper venue. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.
We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint on abstention grounds for abuse of discretion. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 673 F.3d 84, 99 (2d Cir. 2012). Under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, “a federal court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction when parallel state-court litigation could result in ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation’ and abstention would conserve judicial resources.” Id. at 100 (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976)). “Suits are parallel when substantially the same parties are contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issue in another forum.” Dittmer v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 146 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Day v. Union Mines Inc., 862 F.2d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 1988)).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the actions were parallel. The key issues in Krondes’ federal action, including the validity of the allegedly fraudulent mortgage and Appellees’ conduct in enforcing the mortgage, are squarely at issue in the state court foreclosure proceedings. Substantially the same parties are litigants in both actions. The actions are therefore parallel for purposes of Colorado River abstention, even though Krondes’ complaint raises federal claims.
Even where state and federal proceedings are parallel, abstention is justified only where the balance of the following factors weighs in favor of abstention: “(1) whether the controversy involves a res over which one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction; (2) whether the federal forum is less inconvenient than the other for the parties; (3) whether staying or dismissing the federal action will avoid piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the actions were filed, and whether proceedings have advanced more in one forum than in the other; (5) whether federal law provides the rule of decision; and (6) whether the state procedures are adequate to protect the plaintiff's federal rights.” Woodford v. Cmty. Action Agency of Greene Cty., Inc., 239 F.3d 517, 522 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). The district court properly considered and applied each factor, and we agree with its conclusion that each factor weighed in favor of abstention.
We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from the exercise of jurisdiction under Colorado River and dismissing Krondes’ complaint. We need not address the district court’s venue holding or the parties’ arguments as to the merits of Krondes’ claims. We have considered the remainder of Krondes’ arguments as to the district court’s decision to abstain and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 18-2093-cv
Decided: January 14, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)