Neelu Pal v. Jaclyn Hafter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2022
• Docket: 20-17496
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NEELU PAL, MD, No. 20-17496

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01257-JAD-DJA

v. MEMORANDUM* JACLYN HAFTER, in her individual capacity and as Trustee of Estate of Jacob Hafter, Hafter Family Trust, Jacob Hafter Trust, and Hafter Childrens Trust; BRANDON PHILLIPS, in his individual and as Trustee of Estate of Estate of Jacob Hafter, Hafter Family Trust, Jacob Hafter Trust; ESTATE OF JACOB HAFTER; HAFTER FAMILY TRUST; JACOB HAFTER TRUST; HAFTER CHILDREN'S TRUST; ALEXANDER G. LEVEQUE, Esq.; JOSHUA M. HOOD, Esq.; LAW FIRM OF SOLOMON DWIGGINS AND FREER LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Neelu Pal, MD, appeals pro se from the district court’s order staying her

diversity action under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United

States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to stay under Colorado

River, and we review de novo whether the facts of a particular case conform to the

requirements for a Colorado River stay. R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transport Ins. Co.,

656 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly stayed Pal’s action under the Colorado River

doctrine in light of Pal’s parallel state court litigation because, on balance, the

factors weighed in favor of abstention. See Seneca Ins. Co., Inc. v. Strange Land,

Inc., 862 F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining the Colorado River factors).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied as

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 20-17496