United States v. State of Oregon

MEMORANDUM

We have jurisdiction over Case Nos. 11-35184 (“O regon I") and 11-35776 (“Oregon II ”), which are consolidated for appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court in both cases.

Oregon I

Federal courts have a “virtually unflagging” obligation to adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); United States v. Mor-ros, 268 F.3d 695, 703 (9th Cir.2001). As such, “abstention is permissible only in a few carefully defined situations with set requirements.” Morros, 268 F.3d at 703 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 813 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 noting that abstention is proper only in “exceptional circumstances” (quoting Cnty. of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188-89 , 79 S.Ct. 1060 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959)). “We review de novo whether the facts of the instant case conform to these requirements.” Morros, 268 F.3d at 703 . “If they do, we review the district court’s decision to abstain for an abuse of discretion.” Id.

We conclude that the facts of this case meet the…