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

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 4 EFTA00222845 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 5 of 20 inapplicable to

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

nsel Stat. 2255 issues, constitutional issues 04/30/2009 RHB Legal research concurrent jurisdiction. comity, Jane Doe II, state/federal actions, Colorado River abstention 04/30/2009 RHB Draft Motion to Dismiss Jane Doe II (federal) 04/30/2009 RDC Receipt and review EW, LM, Doe -Federal - Edwards April

t Hegseth; Western Official Says Missile Used in Ukraine Attack Was Not an Icbm; The Biden Administration Is Trying to Throw a Hail Mary to Save the Colorado River Before Trump Takes Over Back to Top WASHINGTON SCHEDULE White House President Biden • 10:00 AM: In-Town Pool Call Time • 12:00 PM: The Preside

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