Fed. Dist. Court in NM Orders Abstention in Litigation Over Telecommunications Tower

This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq.

Colorado River abstention was found to be appropriate in a case decided in April by the District Court for the District of New Mexico. The case involved the construction of a telecommunications tower, which the plaintiff had commenced without obtaining a city permit based on the belief that its application had been deemed approved under the Telecommunications Act when the city failed to issue a decision within 60 days. CNSP, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, 2018 WL 1737549 (D. N.M. 4/9/18).

Regarding the issue of abstention, the court found that the first factor, whether either court had assumed jurisdiction over the property, was inapplicable, and the second factor, the inconvenience of the federal forum, was neutral because any inconvenience was minimal. The third and fourth factors, avoiding piecemeal litigation and the order in which the courts obtained jurisdiction, weighed in favor of abstention, because all of the progress regarding substantive legal issues had occurred in the state court litigation, while little progress had been made in the federal forum. Additionally, because the parties and issues in the state and federal suits were the same, the maintenance of both suits would be duplicative and a waste of judicial resources. With respect to the role of federal law, the court noted that the applicability of the Telecommunications Act was central to the state court action, and thus weighed against a stay. Nevertheless, the court found that the state court was competent to apply federal law in this case, which tilted the balance back in favor of a stay.

Summarizing its analysis, the court explained that “four factors, including the most important—the avoidance of piecemeal litigation—weigh in favor of a stay, while the other factors are either inapplicable, neutral, or weigh slightly against a stay. Although the Court recognizes its obligation to exercise its jurisdiction except in “exceptional circumstances,” it finds that a stay is appropriate here in light of the high potential for duplicative litigation and waste of judicial resources.”

CNSP, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, 2018 WL 1737549 (D. N.M. 4/9/18).