Opinion
Case No. 03-1461-JTM
March 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendants Trimodal, Inc. and Willen Company, Inc. to dismiss, or alternatively, to stay the action pending resolution of the defendants' motion in a parallel, Kansas state action, Megal Dreiser, et al. v. Northland Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 03-CV-287 (Douglas County, Kansas). The motion by Trimodal and Willen in the Douglas County action seeks to join the plaintiff here, Wanda Heath, to the state proceeding as an involuntary plaintiff pursuant to KS A § 60-219(a)(2)(ii).
Both the present litigation and that in the state court arose from a June 1, 2002 one-vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer owned by Willen and leased to Trimodal. At the time of the accident, the tractor-trailer was driven by James R. Heath. Heath's wife (the plaintiff), daughter (Teresa Heath), and granddaughter (Meagan Dreiser) were passengers in the vehicle.
Teresa Heath and Meagan Dreiser commenced the action in Douglas County on June 21, 2003, advancing claims of negligence against their father/grandfather James Heath, against Willen, and against Willen's insurer. Claims against Trimodal and its insurer were later added by amendment. Defendants aver in their motion, and the plaintiff does not contend otherwise, that Wanda Heath knew of the Douglas Countyproceedings. The present federal claim was brought by Wanda Heath approximately six months later, on December 17, 2003. The claims are virtually identical to those of the Douglas County action, except that Wanda Heath omits any claims against her husband, who, like herself, is a resident of Kansas.
The defendants request that the court dismiss the action, arguing that Wanda Heath is a contingently necessary party under KS A § 60-219(a)(2)(ii), or that the court should stay the proceedings in light of the prior Douglas County action. Subsequent to the motion, and response by plaintiff, defendants have informed the court that the state court granted their motion to add Wanda Heath on January 26, 2004. Wanda Heath was served with summons and directed to join in the state action on February 2, 2004.
The court has reviewed the pleadings and finds that abstention is appropriate pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Factors relevant to the decision to abstain include whether either court assumed jurisdiction over property; whether the federal forum is inconvenient to the parties; avoidance of piecemeal litigation; the order in which the courts obtained jurisdiction; which forum's substantive law governs the merits of the litigation; and the adequacy of the state forum to protect the rights of the parties. In the present case, there is no particular res of property in issue and there is no showing that Kansas state court presents any substantial inconvenience to any party; the other factors, however, strongly support abstention.
Here, the matter was first presented to the Kansas state court. Kansas law governs the merits of the action, and the resources of the Kansas courts are adequate to defend the interests of all parties. And the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation is particularly appropriate. Plaintiff Wanda Heath's claims here closely follow the claims advanced in the state proceeding, which arose out of the very same underlying event.
Moreover, plaintiff Wanda Heath has already been joined in the state action. Whether or not this court would have had the power to order joinder under KSA 60-219 is not controlling; the state court certainly had the power, and the joinder of Wanda Heath in the state proceeding appears to be entirely consistent with Kansas law. In any event, the present court is not disposed to review a legal conclusion rendered by the state court. The relevant point here is that plaintiff Wanda Heath not only could represent her interests effectively in the state action, but also has, however unwillingly, already been compelled to do precisely that by the operation of state law. The interests in favor of abstention are therefore redoubled. Further, defendants Trimodal and Willen have affirmatively represented to the court that "[i]n the event Plaintiff is successful in challenging her joinder in the state court, Defendants will not contest the lifting of the stay in this case and proceeding in this forum." (Dkt. No. 20, at 12-13).
The court finds that the interests of the administration of justice are not served by the simultaneous maintenance of identical actions by plaintiff. The present matter shall be accordingly stayed pending the resolution of the claims advanced in the Douglas County proceeding.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2004 that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss or to Stay (Dkt. No. 16) is hereby by granted as provided herein, and the present matter is hereby stayed.