Southwest Diversified, Inc. v. City of Brisbane

ORDER STAYING EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF UNSETTLED STATE LAW ISSUES

Mindful that abstention “is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it,” Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 , 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1244 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) (quoting Allegheny County v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188 , 79 S.Ct. 1060, 1062 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959)); see also Murray v. Carrier, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2678 , 2679, 91 L.Ed.2d 427 (1986) (Brennan, J. dissenting), the Court has concluded that the circumstances of this case require abstention. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction over this case until the parties have obtained a state court resolution of the unsettled issues of California law that can obviate or delimit the determination of the constitutional issues this case presents.

BACKGROUND

The gist of plaintiffs’ 110-page Second Amended Complaint is that defendants have reneged on an agreement and illegitimately exercised municipal authority to prevent the developers from implementing a 1,250-unit condominium…