WASHINGTON PRIORITY OF ACTION RULE
The
Washington Priority of Action Rule provides that the
first court to obtain jurisdiction over a case possesses exclusive jurisdiction
to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.
American Mobile Homes of Wash., Inc. v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank, 115 Wn.2d 307,
317, 796 P.2d 1276 (1990). Generally, the
term “coordinate courts” as it applies to the
Rule refers to courts in different counties within the
Washington State court system.
See id. at 323 (holding that the
superior court may not consolidate cases pending in different counties in
applying the
Washington Priority of Action Rule). The courts have been clear on this point; for
example, in
Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co. v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., 137 Wn. App. 296, 304, 153 P.3d 211 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2007), the court held that the unseemly and
expensive jurisdictional conflict that the
Washington State Priority of Action Rule is designed to avoid is one superior court trying to correct another.
FEDERAL PRIORITY OF ACTION RULE
This principle was further illuminated by the
Washington State Supreme Court in
Mobile Homes of Wash., Inc. v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank, 115 Wn.2d at 317, when it held that the Federal courts have their own
Priority of Action Rule applicable to coordinate courts within the
Federal court system.
Mobile Homes of Wash., 115 Wn.2d at 317.
Thus, it is manifestly evident that there is a distinct
Federal Priority of Action Rule and a distinct
Washington Priority of Action Rule that do not apply between the two court systems, and both the Federal Circuit Courts and Supreme Court have echoed this principle.
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS
Undeniably, “[t]he rule is well recognized that the
pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning
the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction."
Ryan v. Johnson, 115 F.3d 193, 195 (3rd
Cir. 1997).
The general rule regarding
simultaneous litigation of similar issues in
both state and federal courts is that both actions may proceed until one has
come to judgment, at which point that judgment may create a res judicata or
collateral estoppel effect on the other action.
University of Maryland v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 923, F.2d 265,
275-76 (3rd Cir. 1991)
(
citing McClellan
v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 282, 30 S.Ct. 501, 504-505, 54 L.Ed. 762 (1910);
Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U.S. 548, 554, 23 L.Ed. 983 (1877)) (quotation marks
omitted) (emphasis added).
Particularly, the 9th Circuit has held that “[t]he rule
that permits
simultaneous litigation in state and federal court of overlapping
and even identical cases is deeply rooted in our system.”
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir.
2003). Parallel state and federal
litigation is inherent in our legal system, and the possibility of duplicative
litigation is a price of federalism.
Id.
(citation omitted). Moreover, the U.S.
Supreme court has recognized that the rule can produce inefficient simultaneous
litigation in state and federal courts on the same issue, but the court has
held that this is one of the costs of our dual court system.
Id. (
citing Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Ala.
Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 524-25, 106 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed.2d 877 (1986);
Doran v.
Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 928, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975).
The 9th Circuit in Noel v. Hall, supra, further explained, "The
inefficiencies produced by the rule permitting simultaneous litigation in state
and federal court are mitigated by a number of abstention doctrines [i.e., Younger abstention, Pullman abstention, Burford abstention, and Colorado River abstention] that
permit, and often require, a federal court to abstain in favor of state court
litigation.” Id. at
1159-60. “In addition, a federal court
may stay its proceedings based on comity even when none of the absention
doctrines requires that it do so.” Id. (citing Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202-03,
108 S.Ct. 523, 98 L.Ed.2d 529 (1988).
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Poignantly, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 295,
90 S.Ct. 1739, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970),
[T]he state and federal courts had concurrent
jurisdiction in this case, and neither court was free to prevent either party
from simultaneously pursuing claims in both courts. (emphasis added).
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced
Attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. Please note: the information contained in this article is not offered as legal advice and will not form an attorney-client relationship with either this author or
Williams Law Group, PS; please see our
DISCLAIMER.
