Clark ex rel. Sears v. Lacy

Federal abstention doctrines can be thought of in two ways: they may be interpretations of jurisdictional statutes, or they may be examples of federal common law (something we will learn more about later in the course). Either way, there may be splits among lower courts - in this case, federal circuit courts. Keep this in mind as you read Clark v. Lacy to determine if it is an accurate or faithful application of the Colorado River abstention doctrine.

Also keep in mind the fact pattern and how it differs from the situation in Colorado River. What was it about the facts and procedural posture led the Colorado River court to conclude that there were “exceptional circumstances” there? Are there any “exceptional,” or even unusual, circumstances present in Clark v. Lacy, below, other than the presence of overlapping/parallel state and federal court litigation (which must always be present even to begin a conversation about Colorado River abstention)?

How does the following strike you: The court in Clark v. Lacy says that if parallel litigation in state and federal courts is "duplicative," that is a factor weighing in favor of issuing a Colorado River stay. It also says that if the parallel litigation in state and federal courts is "piecemeal," that is a factor in favor of issuing a Colorado River stay. Do you see any problem with this reasoning?

Finally, the Clark court articulates a two-part test, and the second part has ten factors.  How many factors do you think an average federal judge can consider at one time?  How many factors can you consider at one time? What does that tell you about the court's reasoning?

At the end of this case, do you smell a rat? Or, alternatively, do you smell a rose?