Epstein Secrets

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

oses 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. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)] the Supreme Court announced that a federal court may dismiss an action because of para

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 (111" Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier c

purely federal issues in this case because there is an independent action under State law is absurd. For this argument the Defendant relies on the Colorado River abstention doctrine, clearly inapplicable to this case. Only in "exceptional" circumstances, to promote conservation of judicial resources and comp

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

comprehensive disposition of litigation, would a federal court be authorized to dismiss federal parallel' claims that are initiated in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). However, for the Colorado River doctrine to even apply, there must be clear Cong