Wynnyk

MEMORANDUM *

Bernadine Wynnyk appeals the dismissal of her complaint, contending that the district court erred in concluding that the elements for Burford abstention were satisfied. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 , 63 S.Ct. 1098 , 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943). Jackson County disputes that contention and further contends that even if abstention is appropriate under Burford , the federal court should abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 *135 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). As the parties are familiar with the facts and arguments, we do not recount them here except as necessary. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

The Ninth Circuit has noted that Bur-ford abstention is an “extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of the District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it.” City of Tucson v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 284 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976)). In applying the doctrine set forth in Burford , there are three requirements that must be met for the district court to abstain: (1) the state must have chosen…