United States v. Celaya-Cartajena

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding proceedings were parallel where “the relief sought . . . in the Federal Action” was “ultimately also sought in the [state] [a]ction”
• noting that in determining whether two actions are parallel, “the court may consider whether the actions involve the same (i) parties, (ii) subject matter, and (iii
• finding that state court could adequately protect plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive rights as plaintiffs did not identify “any conceivable jeopardy or prejudice to their rights” if case was decided in state court
• discussing risks “where a party in one lawsuit is absent from the other”
• although the state court action involved an additional party not named in the federal case, actions were deemed parallel
• “[W]here, as here, the linchpin of the federal action is the same issue at the core of the state action, there is a strong likelihood of needless duplication of the state proceeding”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).