Art 57 Prop Inc v. 57 BB Property
Art 57 Prop Inc v. 57 BB Property
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-10385 _____________________
ART 57 PROPERTIES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
57 BB PROPERTY, LLC; MILEWOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.; EDGEMONT ENTERPRISES, INC.; BOSWORTH ENTERPRISES, INC.; SURREY HILL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (7:99-CV-30-P) _________________________________________________________________ Aril 7, 2000
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiff, ART 57 Properties, Inc., seeks review of the
district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motion to
dismiss based on the doctrine of abstention as provided in
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,
424 U.S. 800(1976), and as applied by our court in Murphy v. Uncle Ben’s,
Inc.,
168 F.3d 734(5th Cir. 1999). After carefully reviewing the
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. record, the briefs, and the order of the district court, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion in applying the
factors outlined by our court in Uncle Ben’s. See Uncle Ben’s,
168 F.3d at 738. The evidence in the record is convincing that the
federal cause of action was filed by ART 57 after substantial
progress was made in the state court action, that the prosecution
of the two actions simultaneously could result in inconsistent
verdicts, that federal law plays no part in deciding the merits of
this case, and that ART 57's later filed federal court action
indicates forum shopping. Consequently, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising its jurisdiction
over this cause.
We thus conclude that the judgment of the district court
dismissing ART 57's complaint should be, and the same is
A F F I R M E D.
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished