Epstein Secrets

Florida v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990). The exceptional circumstances test is set forth in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (1983). As the Eleventh Circuit explained in American Bankers Ins., 891 F.2d at 884: In Colorado River [Water Conserv. Dist. v.

circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of the first filed state action. See American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990). The exceptional circumstances test is set forth in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (198

ted in Colorado River Water Consent. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)." The six factors considered are (1) whether one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction o

sdiction. Id.' Because concurrent jurisdiction exists over this federal claim, the six factor analysis as discussed in American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir. 1990), applies in determining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action i

ated in Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) and Moses H. Cone Memorial How. v. Mercury Constr. 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)." The six factors considered are (1) whether one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction ov

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier cl