Montgomery et al v Montgomery

2011 DNH 023

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: February 9, 2011
• Docket: CV-10-536-JL
• Status: Published

Opinion

Montgomery et al v Montgomery CV-10-536-JL 2/9/11 P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nadezda Montgomery and I.V.

v. Civil N o . 10-cv-536-JL Opinion N o . 2011 DNH 023 Scott Montgomery

OPINION AND ORDER

This case raises the question of whether this court should

abstain from hearing an action to enforce a federally created

contractual obligation between the parties to an ongoing divorce

proceeding in state court. The plaintiffs, Nadezda Montgomery

and her minor son, I.V., have sued Nadezda’s husband, Scott

Montgomery. They seek specific performance of an “Affidavit of

Support” that Scott swore out on their behalf to enable them to

become lawful permanent residents of the United States after

immigrating from Russia. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii).

The parties do not question that this court has subject-

matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the

plaintiffs’ claim arises under federal law--namely, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1183(e)(1), which provides that “[a]n action to enforce an

affidavit of support . . . may be brought against the sponsor in

any appropriate court by a sponsored alien, with respect to

financial support” (formatting altered). See, e.g., Cheshire v .

Cheshire, N o . 05-453, 2006 WL 1208010, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 4 , 2006); Stump v . Stump, N o . 04-253, 2005 WL 2757329, at *1 (N.D.

Ind. Oct. 2 5 , 2005); Tornheim v . Kohn, N o . 00-5084, 2002 WL

482534, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2 6 , 2002).

Instead, Scott has moved to dismiss,1 arguing that, under

Younger v . Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), this court should abstain

from exercising its jurisdiction in light of his pending divorce

action against Nadezda in the Derry Family Division of the

Rockingham County Superior Court, In re Montgomery, N o . 2010-M-99

(N.H. Super. C t . Fam. Div. Feb. 1 7 , 2010). Following oral

argument, the motion is denied. Because this is an action to

enforce an obligation that exists independently of the

Montgomerys’ marriage, it will not interfere with the pending

divorce proceedings so as to warrant Younger abstention. Nor

does the fact that Nadezda first attempted to enforce the

affidavit in the divorce proceedings, which Scott emphasizes,

justify abstention under Younger--or even Colorado River Water

Conservation District v . United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976),

which Scott has not invoked, but which this court has considered

on its own initiative anyway.

1 While Scott’s motion invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), governing dismissals for failure to state a claim, he is actually asking the court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

2 I. Background

Nadezda alleges that she and I.V. were living in Russia when

Scott, a resident of Derry, New Hampshire, asked them to emigrate

“to get married and build a family with him in America.” Nadeza

agreed. She and I.V. arrived in the United States in June 2008,

and Nadezda and Scott were married the next month. Scott later

filed petitions with the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Service seeking lawful permanent residence for both

Nadezda and I.V. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255a.

As part of this process, Scott executed an “Affidavit of

Support” under § 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act,

id. § 1182a, also known as a “Form I-864,” 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(a)

(1)(ii). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii), an affidavit of

support is required for certain aliens to obtain adjustment of

status to lawful permanent residency, including the spouses of

American citizens and children accompanying their immigrant

parents. Id. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). Without the affidavit

(and subject to other exceptions not relevant here), such an

alien can be deemed ineligible for adjustment of status on the

grounds that he or she “is likely at any time to become a public

charge.” Id. § 1182(a)(4)(A).

Accordingly, “to establish that an alien is not excludable

as a public charge,” an affidavit of support must be

3 executed by a sponsor of the alien as a contract . . . in which the sponsor agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty level during the period in which the affidavit is enforceable.

Id. § 1183a(a)(1)(A)(formatting altered). The affidavit is

enforceable until the alien either becomes a naturalized citizen

of the United States or is credited with having “worked 40

qualifying quarters of coverage as defined under title II of the

Social Security Act.” Id. §§ 1183a(a)(2)-(3).

In September 2008, Scott executed an affidavit of support

naming himself as the sponsor and Nadezda and I.V. as the

sponsored aliens. The affidavit, completed by filling out an

official Form I-864 provided by the Department of Homeland

Security, states that “by signing this form, you agree to assume

certain specific obligations under the Immigration and

Nationality Act and other Federal laws.” Specifically, in a

section entitled “Sponsor’s Contract,” the affidavit provides:

If an intending immigrant becomes a permanent resident in the United States based on a Form I-864 that you have signed, then, until your obligations under the Form I-864 terminate, you must:

--Provide the intending immigrant any support necessary to maintain him or her at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size . . .

The affidavit further states that “[y]our obligations under a

Form I-864 will end” on the occurrence of a number of specified

4 events, including those set forth in §§ 1183a(a)(2)-(3). In

accordance with §§ 1183a(a), however, the affidavit notes that

“divorce does not terminate your obligations under this Form

I-864.” The affidavit also cautions that “[i]f you do not

provide sufficient support to the person who becomes a permanent

resident based on the Form I-864 that you signed, that person may

sue you for this support.”

The Montgomerys’ relationship began to deteriorate soon

after their marriage. By February 2010, Scott had filed a

petition for divorce in the Derry Family Division of the

Rockingham County Superior Court. In re Montgomery, N o . 2010-M-

99 (N.H. Super. C t . Fam. Div. Feb. 1 7 , 2010). Nadezda responded

with her own “cross-petition for divorce and other affirmative

relief,” including alimony for her, child support for I.V., and,

for both of them, “support pursuant to . . . the I-864

Affidavit.” Later, after both Scott and Nadezda appeared before

the Family Court with counsel, it issued an “Order on Temporary

Hearing and Structuring Conference.”2 In re Montgomery, N o .

2010-M-99 (N.H. Super. C t . Fam. Div. July 2 1 , 2010).

2 Under New Hampshire divorce procedure, the court may issue such decrees for, among other purposes, “[d]etermining the temporary maintenance and custody of any children” and “[o]rdering a temporary allowance to be paid for the support of the other.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 458:16, I(e)-(f).

5 The order noted that Nadezda had “represent[ed] that [Scott]

signed an Affidavit of Support with the Department of Homeland

Security and, as such, he is responsible for supporting [her] and

[her] child, [ I . V . ] , during their stay in the United States.”3

Id. at 3 . But the court declined to

find that [Nadezda’s] representation that the Affidavit of Support signed by [Scott] requires the payment of child support for a minor that [Scott] has not adopted, that has a father that is capable of paying support, that has a mother who is capable of paying support and becoming employed full time, as well as the fact that this is a short-term marriage (married for less than two years).

Id. at 4 . Accordingly, the court awarded Nadezda $900 per month

in temporary alimony, noting its “expectation that [she] will be

gainfully employed prior to the parties [sic] final hearing at

which time the current alimony award will cease to exist.” Id.

at 3 . The court did not order Scott to pay any support for I.V.

but continued health insurance payments on his behalf. Id.

Shortly after this order issued, Scott filed a memorandum

with the Family Court to “apprise [it] of [his] obligations to

[Nadezda] and [I.V.] pursuant to the Affidavit of Support.” The

memorandum argued that, should the Family Court “order support

for [Nadezda], it should be done as an enforcement of the Form

3 It does not appear that Nadezda provided the Family Court with a copy of the affidavit of support either prior to or at the temporary hearing. This court has not been provided with a transcript of the hearing or an otherwise complete record of the Family Court proceedings.

6 I-864 Affidavit of Support,” which the memorandum acknowledged to

be “a contract that is legally enforceable” against Scott by

Nadezda and I.V. The memorandum went on to offer a calculation

of Scott’s obligations to Nadezda and I.V. under the affidavit

that would have resulted in no support to them beyond what he was

already providing in the form of payments made on their behalf

for health insurance and certain other living expenses, and not

counting the temporary alimony.4

Nadezda then filed a motion “for clarification and

reconsideration” of the Family Court’s temporary order. She

argued, among other things, that because in “the affidavit of

support [Scott] promised to support both for [sic] Nadezda and

her son [sic] at least 125% of the poverty rate,” he “should at

least be responsible for paying support of child support,

alimony, and/or other support of approximately $1,500 per month.”

The Family Court denied the motion in a margin order on August

2 3 , 2010. About three months later, Nadezda and I.V. commenced

this action, seeking specific performance of the affidavit of

support “retroactive to the date [it] was executed, as well as

ongoing,” together with attorneys’ fees and costs.

4 The calculation was based in part on Scott’s argument that Nadezda “has an obligation to mitigate losses” by getting a job and that her support should be reduced by what she could reasonably be expected to earn if she did s o .

7 II. Analysis

A. Younger abstention

In moving to dismiss this action, Scott argues that this

court should abstain from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction

under the doctrine set forth in Younger v . Harris, supra. That

case “and its progeny espouse a strong federal policy against

federal-court interference with pending state judicial

proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.” Middlesex

County Ethics Comm. v . Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431

(1982). Younger abstention is therefore “appropriate when the

requested relief would interfere (1) with an ongoing state

judicial proceeding; (2) that implicates an important state

interest; and (3) that provides an adequate opportunity for the

federal plaintiff to advance his federal [claim].” Rossi v .

Gemma, 489 F.3d 2 6 , 34 (1st Cir. 2007).

Scott argues that these criteria are satisfied here because

(1) the divorce proceedings are ongoing, (2) they implicate the

state’s “paramount interest in domestic relations,” and (3) they

provide an adequate opportunity for the plaintiffs to press their

claim to enforce the affidavit of support under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1183a(e)(1), in light of the fact that both Montgomerys have

asked the Family Court to take the affidavit into account in

awarding spousal and child support. The plaintiffs respond that,

because the Family Court’s temporary order “simply brushed aside

8 the affidavit of support” and “examined the support issue

exclusively from the state law perspective,” they were not in

fact “provided with any meaningful opportunity to present” their

federal claim for support under § 1183a(e)(1).

As Scott points out, the Family Court’s treatment of the

affidavit of support in its temporary order is perhaps

unsurprising in light of Nadezda’s apparent failure to provide

the affidavit to the court before it ruled. See note 3 , supra.

In any event, this court need not decide whether the Family

Court’s ruling indicates that it will not afford the plaintiffs

an “adequate opportunity” to present their federal claim in that

forum so as to foreclose Younger abstention, due to the absence

of another essential prerequisite for that relief--what the court

of appeals has called the “threshold issue of ‘interference.’”

Rossi, 489 F.3d at 3 5 .

A federal-court proceeding “interferes” with a state-court

proceeding for Younger purposes when it “either enjoins the state

proceeding or has the ‘practical effect’ of doing so.” Rio

Grande Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc. v . Rullan, 397 F.3d 5 6 , 70 (1st

Cir. 2005). The plaintiffs’ action in this court for specific

performance of the affidavit of support will not “interfere” with

the divorce proceedings in this way.

Again, the plaintiffs seek only “an award of support

payable” by Scott, both retrospectively and prospectively,

9 together with attorneys’ fees and costs. They do not seek an

injunction against the Family Court proceedings, or any other

relief that would have that effect as a practical matter. As

discussed supra, Scott’s obligations under the affidavit of

support exist independently of his marriage to Nadezda, so

enforcing it will not require this court to countermand the

temporary order--or any other decree the Family Court might

issue--as to the status of the marriage, the disposition of

marital property, or the like. C f . Hook v . Henderson, N o . 94-

35075, 1995 WL 398849, at *2 (9th Cir. July 7 , 1995) (upholding

denial of abstention from suit arising out of one spouse’s

promise to convey property to the other because “the primary

issues involved questions of property and contract,” not the

parties’ marital status). 5

5 Federal courts have also held that the so-called “domestic relations” exception generally does not divest them of subject- matter jurisdiction over tort or contract actions between spouses or ex-spouses. See, e.g., Jagiella v . Jagiella, 647 F.2d 5 6 1 , 564 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing cases); accord DeMauro v . DeMauro, 115 F.3d 9 4 , 98-99 (1st Cir. 1997) (“The so-called domestic relations exception does not preclude federal courts from adjudicating tort actions merely because the parties were married and are in the process of divorce.”) (citing Ankenbrandt v . Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992)). In any event, the majority view is that the domestic relations exception divests federal courts of jurisdiction over cases premised on diversity of citizenship only, in line with the reasoning of Ankenbrandt. See Mandel v . Town of Orleans, 326 F.3d 2 6 7 , 271 & n.3 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing cases but declining to resolve the issue). This a federal question case and, again, neither party has questioned this court’s subject-matter jurisdiction as an initial matter.

10 This is in contrast to this court’s decision in Colassi v .

Looper, 2008 DNH 106, on which Scott heavily relies. There,

after the Superior Court preliminarily denied the plaintiff’s

motion to modify a parenting order to prevent the defendant from

moving out of the state with their child, the plaintiff filed a

pro se action against both the defendant and the Superior Court

in this form, asking this court t o , inter alia, “overturn” the

Superior Court’s order on the theory that it violated his federal

constitutional rights. Id. at 2-4. This court, invoking Younger

abstention sua sponte, ruled that “much of the relief [the

plaintiff] [sought] from [ i t ] , e.g., overturning or modifying the

Superior Court’s orders, or enjoining [the child’s] relocation

despite its approval by that court, would interfere with the

proceedings there.” Id. at 5-6.

Here, though, the plaintiffs do not ask this court to

“overturn” the Family Court’s temporary order, or to enjoin Scott

from taking any actions which it authorized.6 At most, this

action could result in an order requiring Scott to pay support to

the plaintiffs in accordance with the I-864. Scott does not

6 This is also in contrast to Rossi, which Scott invoked at oral argument as support for his “interference” argument. There, the plaintiffs to the federal action sought an order compelling the clerk of the state court to release funds from the court registry to them, as well as a declaratory judgment that the state court proceeding violated their federal constitutional right to due process. 489 F.3d at 30-32.

11 argue that this relief would interfere with the support

obligations put in place by the Family Court; to the contrary, he

maintains (as he did in his post-hearing memorandum to the Family

Court) that this relief would simply duplicate those obligations.

As the court of appeals has instructed, however, the simple

existence of “parallel federal and state litigation” does not

justify Younger abstention. Rio Grande, 397 F.3d at 7 1 . Indeed,

that is true even when the twin lawsuits threaten the

“possibility of inconsistent results in the future.” Id. So any

chance that this court and the Family Court might come to

different conclusions about the enforceability of the affidavit

of support, or the amount it obligates Scott to pay, does not

itself warrant abstention under the Younger doctrine.

Indeed, as the Supreme Court has explained, a “federal

court’s disposition of . . . a case may well affect, or for

practical purposes pre-empt . . . a pending state-court action.

But there is no doctrine that the availability or even the

pendency of state judicial proceedings excludes the federal

courts.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v . Council of City of New

Orleans, 491 U.S. 3 5 0 , 373 (1989) (dash omitted). Again, the

mere “pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to

proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court

having jurisdiction.” ExxonMobil Corp. v . Saudi Basic Indus.

Corp., 544 U.S. 2 8 0 , 292 (2005). Thus, Scott’s repeated

12 assertions at oral argument that the issues underlying the

plaintiffs’ claim here are “part and parcel” of the issues being

addressed in the Family Court, or that the Family Court is

already “dealing with” the affidavit of support--even if

accurate--simply do not support Younger abstention.

B. Colorado River abstention

Scott also argues that the plaintiffs initially “chose to

insert the claim [to enforce the affidavit of support] into the

divorce proceedings” and are now “forum shopping due to

dissatisfaction with the rulings of the Derry Family Division.”

The court of appeals has identified the fact “that the federal

action was . . . filed or pursued as a reaction to an adverse

state court action” as “a factor that weighs heavily in favor of

abstention.” Rio Grande, 397 F.3d at 72 (citing Cruz v . Melecio,

204 F.3d 1 4 , 24 (1st Cir. 2000)). But, as Rio Grande teaches,

that would be abstention under a different doctrine: the one set

forth in Colorado River Water Conservation District v . United

States, supra. So-called “Colorado River abstention” applies to

“situations involving the contemporaneous exercise of concurrent

jurisdictions . . . by state and federal courts” and “rest[s] on

considerations of wise judicial administration, giving regard to

conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition

of litigation.” Id. at 817 (bracketing and quotation marks

13 omitted). Even putting aside the fact that Scott has not invoked

this doctrine by name, “the circumstances permitting abstention

under Colorado River for reasons of ‘wise judicial

administration’ are quite ‘limited’ and indeed ‘exceptional,’”

Rio Grande, 397 F.3d at 71 (quoting 424 U.S. at 818)), and this

case does not fit within that exceedingly narrow category.

The court of appeals has “developed a list of factors--which

is not meant to be exclusive--for when Colorado River abstention

might be appropriate,” id. at 7 1 , including: (1) whether either court has assumed jurisdiction over a res; (2) the [geographical] inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether state or federal law controls; (6) the adequacy of the state forum to protect the parties’ interests; (7) the vexatious or contrived nature of the federal claim; and (8) respect for the principles underlying removal jurisdiction.

Id. at 71-72 (quoting KPS & Assocs., Inc. v . Designs By FMC,

Inc., 318 F.3d 1 , 10 (1st Cir. 2003)). Here, none of these

factors weighs heavily, if at all, in favor of abstention.

At the outset, neither this action nor the divorce action

implicates in rem jurisdiction, and this action did not arrive

here by way of removal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441, so factors (1) and

(8) are inapplicable. Though Scott is now living in the marital

home in Derry, which is also the location of the Family Court,

the short distance from there to this court’s location in Concord

does not equate to “geographical inconvenience” (factor 2 ) . See

14 Burns v . Watler, 931 F.2d 1 4 0 , 147 (1st Cir. 1991) (ruling that

even “a two-hour drive does not denote a degree of inconvenience

that should significantly influence” the abstention question).

As already discussed, this action seeks to enforce Scott’s

obligations to the plaintiffs that exist independently of his

marriage to Nadezda. So allowing the enforcement action to

proceed here while the divorce action proceeds in the Family

Court--on unrelated issues like the status of the marriage and

the disposition of marital property--will not subject the parties

to “piecemeal litigation” (factor 3 ) . The only area of potential

overlap is between sums this court might order Scott to pay under

the affidavit and sums the Family Court might order him to pay as

spousal or child support, and, as Scott himself suggests, any

discrepancy there can be readily corrected by crediting the

support payments against the payments under the affidavit, or

vice versa (assuming that would be appropriate, an issue this

court does not decide at the moment). In any event, the fact

that “related issues . . . would be decided by different courts,

or even [that] two courts would . . . be deciding the same

issues” does not weigh heavily in favor of abstention. Villa

Marina Yacht Sales, Inc. v . Hatteras Yachts, 915 F.2d 7 , 16 (1st

Cir. 1990) (noting that “the routine inefficiency that is the

inevitable result of parallel proceedings” in state and federal

courts is not enough to support abstention).

15 Moreover, there is no question that federal law,

specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1183a, controls the plaintiffs’ claim to

enforce the affidavit of support (factor 5 ) . As Scott’s

memorandum to the Family Court reveals, this claim raises a

number of issues that must be resolved with reference to the

sparse federal case law on this subject o r , potentially, as

matters of first impression. Conversely, the § 1183 claim does

not appear to implicate any state-law issues. So this factor

also weighs against abstention. See Rio Grande, 397 F.3d at 7 2 .

Indeed, “the presence of federal-law issues must always be a

major consideration weighing against surrender” of federal

jurisdiction under Colorado River. Moses H . Cone Mem’l Hosp. v .

Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 26 (1983) (footnote omitted).

That brings the court to the remaining considerations, which

essentially comprise Scott’s argument for abstention (albeit

under Younger, not Colorado River): the order in which the

forums obtained jurisdiction (factor 4 ) , the adequacy of the

state forum to protect the parties’ interests (factor 6 ) , and the

vexatious or contrived nature of the federal claim (factor 7 ) .

Scott complains that, although it was Nadezda who first raised

the § 1183a claim in the Family Court, she subsequently decided

“to ignore the state court proceedings and bring a separate

action in federal court,” which amounts to “forum shopping” and

an “abuse of the federal court system.” While there is no

16 disputing Scott’s account of the chronology, it cannot justify

abstention under the circumstances of this case.

Despite Scott’s suggestion to the contrary, it is reasonably

clear that the Family Court did not award Nadezda any relief

based on the I-864, which it specifically found not to require

Scott to support I.V. In re Montgomery, slip o p . at 4 . In light

of that finding, there is also no basis to conclude that the

Family Court took the affidavit into account in determining

Scott’s alimony payments to Nadeza (especially where, as she

points out, the court expressed its view that those payments

would end once she became “gainfully employed,” which does not

itself cease Scott’s obligations under the affidavit). As

already discussed, the Family Court’s approach is understandable

in light of Nadezda’s apparent failure to produce the affidavit

before or during the temporary hearing. But after the hearing,

the Family Court did receive the affidavit--as well as a

memorandum from Scott essentially acknowledging his obligations

thereunder to both Nadezda and I.V.--but still denied, without

comment, Nadezda’s motion to reconsider the temporary order t o ,

among other things, include support for I.V.

This, too, is understandable in light of the Family Court’s

busy docket and the formidable standard for motions to

reconsider. Nevertheless, this ruling furnishes some objective

basis for the plaintiffs’ concern that the Family Court will not

17 enforce the rights conferred upon them by the affidavit of

support under federal law. S o , even if the Family Court cannot

be called an “inadequate forum” to secure those rights (factor

6 ) , there is nevertheless enough “room for doubt” on that point

to give this court pause over abstaining from jurisdiction.

Moses H . Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 26-28 (instructing that

Colorado River abstention should not be used in the face of “any

substantial doubt” as to whether “parallel state-court litigation

will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt

resolution of the issues”). 7

Relatedly, the fact that the Family Court did not require

Scott to support I.V. despite Scott’s acknowledged obligation to

do so under the affidavit suggests that this action is neither

“vexatious” nor “contrived” (factor 7 ) . The plaintiffs’

understandable desire to obtain the support for I.V. that he had

been guaranteed under federal law furnishes “an entirely

7 Furthermore, while Nadezda has attempted to obtain support for I.V. in the Family Court proceedings, I.V. himself is not a party to them, and it is unclear whether he can intervene in them for the purposes of pressing his own claim to enforce the affidavit. C f . N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 458:17-a, I (authorizing the appointment of guardians ad litem in divorce proceedings, but only “to represent the interests of the children of the marriage”) (emphasis added). But he can bring that claim here. This situation further counsels against abstention. C f . Bunting ex rel. Gray v . Gray, 2 Fed. Appx. 443, 447 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding abstention inappropriate where a state-court divorce action did not provide an adequate forum for a child’s claim for money owed her by her stepfather, and citing similar cases).

18 reasonable explanation for why they would want to [proceed]

simultaneously in state and federal court.” Rio Grande, 397 F.3d

at 72 (finding it “reasonable for [plaintiff] to want the federal

courts to devise prospective relief” against defendant, despite a

parallel state-court proceeding where that relief could have been

sought, “given the federal courts’ greater familiarity with the”

federal law at issue). And Scott’s frank admission of some

responsibility to the plaintiffs under affidavit of support makes

it impossible to call their claim here “contrived.”

Finally, as Scott emphasizes, the plaintiffs did not

commence this action until after the Family Court had rejected

Nadezda’s claim to support for I.V. As already noted, the court

of appeals has observed that the filing of a federal suit “as a

reaction to an adverse state court action” is “a factor that

weighs heavily in favor of abstention.” Id. In the cases where

the court of appeals has actually found that factor to support

abstention, however, the plaintiffs did not repair to the federal

forum until the state court had already “entered a final judgment

adverse to their interests.” Cruz, 204 F.3d at 2 4 ; see also

Lundborg v . Phoenix Leasing, Inc., 91 F.3d 265, 272 (1st Cir.

1996) (ruling that abstention was proper from a suit “to undo a

preexisting, final judgment of a state court”). But here, the

Family Court has issued only a temporary order--not a final

judgment--on Nadezda’s claims for support under the affidavit.

19 Indeed, the Supreme Court has instructed that, in assessing

the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction as part of

the Colorado River analysis, “priority should not be measured

exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in

terms of how much progress has been made in the two actions.”

Moses H . Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 2 1 . So far as is apparent

in the filings from the Family Court that have been provided,

those proceedings have not moved beyond the temporary hearing,

and, as already discussed, have involved little if any

consideration of the affidavit of support. And again, I.V.’s

claim to enforce the affidavit on his own behalf is not even

before the Family Court. See note 7 , supra. This is a far cry,

then, from cases where retaining jurisdiction in the federal

court would entail a complete “do-over” of state proceedings.

Cf. Cruz, 204 F.3d at 24-25 (ordering abstention in light of

state-court proceedings that were both more advanced and more

comprehensive than the parallel federal court action).

In sum, very few if any of the Colorado River factors cut in

favor of abstention here, and even those that arguably d o , i.e.,

the sequence of the actions, or the potentially vexatious effect

of the parallel litigation, do not carry much weight under the

particular circumstances of this case. More importantly, this

court cannot lose sight of the forest for the trees: “[o]nly the

clearest of justifications will warrant dismissal” under the

20 Colorado River abstention doctrine, in light of “the virtually

unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the

jurisdiction given them.” 424 U.S. at 818-19. Here, where the

only potential justification is the fact that a federal claim was

previously raised in an ongoing state proceeding, Colorado River

abstention is simply not appropriate. See Rio Grande, 397 F.3d

at 7 2 ; DeMauro, 115 F.3d at 98(“the Supreme Court has discouraged

abstention based solely on the ground that a related state court

action may address similar issues”). Nor, as already discussed,

is Younger abstention. Scott’s motion to dismiss on abstention

grounds, even if generously read to invoke both the Younger and

Colorado River doctrines, must be denied.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Scott’s motion to dismiss8 is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph N. Laplante nited States District Judge Dated: February 9, 2011

8 Document n o . 6.

21 cc: Gregory Romanovsky, Esq. Ronald L . Abramson, Esq. Mary Ann Dempsey, Esq.