Clay Regional Water v. City of Spirit Lake (193 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 2002)

United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa 2002-04-04

Commerce and Trade Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Agriculture

Citations

Full opinion text

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ABSTAIN FROM JURISDICTION

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1131 I. INTRODUCTION.

1131 A. The Parties And The Underlying Dispute.

1132 B. The State And Federal Court Lawsuits ...

1132 1. The state court action.

1133 2. The federal court action.

II. DISCUSSION. 1134

A. The District Court’s Virtually Unflagging Obligation . 1134

B. Exceptions To The General Rule. 1134

C. Standard Of Discretion: Colorado River or Brillhart? 1137

1. Parallel proceedings. 1137

2. Essence of the District’s complaint. 1138

D. Brillhart Abstention.'.. 1145

III. CONCLUSION.. 1155

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court on the defendant’s Motion (1) To Dismiss Or Stay Based On Abstention From Jurisdiction, Or, In The Alternative, (2) To Strike Unnecessary And Inappropriate Matters From Plaintiffs Complaints. (Doc. No. 8). The defendant requests that this court abr stain from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs federal causes of action on the ground parallel litigation is presently advancing in state court, arguing that the plaintiffs federal lawsuit is a duplicitous attempt to oust the state court of the opportunity to decide the matter. The plaintiff resists the defendant’s motion and argues that the state and federal lawsuits are not parallel; according to the plaintiff, the state court action will merely decide a simple question of state contract law, which will not resolve future disputes between the parties and will not adequately address the plaintiffs federally guaranteed rights.

A. The Parties And The Underlying Dispute

The plaintiff, Clay Regional Water (the “District”), is a rural water district, organized and incorporated pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 357A. The defendant, City of Sprit Lake, Iowa (the “City”), is a municipal corporation created under the laws of the State of Iowa.

In 1990, the parties entered into a contact, the validity of which the District put in issue in the pending state court action. The contract is titled “New Water Service Plan for Property Within Two Miles of the City of Spirit Lake, Iowa (East Lake Okoboji Project)” and establishes the property the District can service in the event the City annexes land. According to the City’s state court petition, the City indeed annexed the land contemplated in the contract and claims that the District does not have the exclusive right to provide water services to the annexed property. Instead, the City argues that it, not the District, may provide water services to the annexed property pursuant to the express provisions of the contract.

B. The State And Federal Court Lawsuits

1. The state court action

The City filed the state court action on May 23, 2001. In this lawsuit, the City requests a declaratory judgment that it may provide water services to the land annexed by the City in the area contemplated by the contract. In its state court petition, the City seeks the following relief:

Wherefore, Plaintiff, City of Spirit Lake, Iowa, prays the Court to declare and construe the rights and duties of the parties under the contract; that the Court reserve jurisdiction to award supplementary relief, either because defendant violates the contract after its construction by the Court, or does any act pending the trial which turns out to be such a violation. Also to adjudge that Plaintiff has the right hereafter to sue at law for past or future damages from any violation of the contract as herein construed; and for such other relief as may be appropriate to adjudge and declare the rights of the parties herein.

Def.’s Exh. A, at 2 (State Court Petition).

The District answered the City’s petition on June 19, 2001. It filed an amended answer on July 3, 2001. In both the initial and the amended answers, the District denied both the validity and the enforceability of the contract on several grounds. Namely, the initial and amended answers share five common defenses. First, the District contends the City failed to satisfy conditions precedent to the District’s obligation to perform. Specifically, the District claims that the agreement was not approved by the Farmers’ Home Administration (“FmHA”), thus making the contract void. In arguing failure of a condition precedent, the District relies on the contractual provision that provides: “This agreement is subject to Farmers’ Home Administration’s approval and Clay County Rural Water District will not provide service to any area under this agreement until this agreement is approved by the Farmers’ Home Administration.” Def.’s Exh. A (State Court Petition, at ¶ 5). The District denies that the FmHA approved the 1990 contract.

Second, the District asserted the affirmative defense that the contract is void as against public policy embodied in 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). Third, the District asserted the defense of estoppel. Fourth, the District asserted that the City’s claims were precluded by federal statutory compliance. Fifth, the District asserted justification.

The amended answer ends with these five defenses. The initial answer, but not the amended answer, however, further makes three counterclaims. First, the District set forth a claim under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b), asserting continuing violations and invasion and curtailment of the service area provided and made available to the District. Second, the District alleged a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a pattern and practice of continuing and threatened violations of federally guaranteed rights, namely, the rights guaranteed by 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). In addition, the District sought attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. And third, the District sought statutory compensation as provided by Iowa Code section 357A.21, which provides that “[a] water district organized under chapter 357, 357A, 499, or 504A shall be fairly compensated for losses resulting from annexation.”

On July 31, 2001, the District filed a Motion For Summary Judgment in the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County. The Iowa court heard oral arguments on the motion on September 5, 2001, and, as of the date of this opinion, the motion is under consideration by the state court. Trial is scheduled in the state court matter for May of 2002.

2. The federal court action

On October 2, 2001, the District filed a complaint in this court against the City, alleging violations of 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b), for continuing violations and for invasion and curtailment of the service provided and made available to the District and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. In its complaint, the District seeks the following relief:

[T]he District, Clay Regional Water, requests that this Court (i) declare the rights and liabilities of the parties and render judgment in favor of the District for the City’s violation of 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b), thereby declaring the respective boundaries of the parties pursuant thereto; (ii) enjoin the City from providing service to existing and potential current and future customers within the District’s defined federal franchise; (iii) create, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a constructive trust over customers, revenues and facilities of the City within the District’s state-law defined federal franchise boundaries, and for the transfer of wrongfully acquired customers, revenues and facilities from the City to the District; (iv) exercise its equity jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of en custodia legis for the facilities, customers, and revenue the subject of this action during the pendency of this litigation; (v) award the District attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202, and tax costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920; (vi) award pre- and post judgment interest; and (vii) grant such other and further relief, in law or in equity, which this honorable Court may find the District justly entitled.

Pltf.’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1).

In November of 2001, the City filed this Motion To Abstain From Jurisdiction. On December 26, 2001, the District filed a Motion For Summary Judgment on each of its claims against the City. The court has taken no action on this motion, having granted the City a lengthy extension of time in which to respond to the District’s motion. The parties submitted their scheduling report on January 17, 2002 and indicated a trial readiness date of November 12, 2002. However, a trial date has yet to be set by this court. In January of 2002, the District moved to supplement its resistance to the City’s motion to dismiss or stay, which this court granted on January 29, 2002.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The District Court’s Virtually Unflagging Obligation

In this action, both parties urge thq court to employ the Colorado River abstention doctrine as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Compare Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 21 F.3d 259 (8th Cir.1994).

As a general rule, federal courts may not abstain merely to avoid duplication with concurrent state proceedings. See, e.g., McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 30 S.Ct. 501, 54 L.Ed. 762 (1910); Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U.S. 548, 554, 23 L.Ed. 983 (1877) (“[T]he pendency of a prior suit in another jurisdiction is not a bar ... even though the two suits are for the same cause of action.”); M’Kim v. Voorhies, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 279, 3 L.Ed. 342 (1812); Diggs v. Wolcott, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 179, 2 L.Ed. 587 (1807). That is so because federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236. In 1824, Chief Justice Marshall explained the weightiness of this obligation in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1824):

It is most true, that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction, if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure, because it approaches the confines of the constitution.... With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.

Id. at 404. In fact, the only firmly entrenched exception to this general rule of requiring retention of jurisdiction is in cases involving real property. See Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 412, 84 S.Ct. 1579, 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964) (“[I]n cases where a court has custody of property, that is, proceedings in rem or quasi in rem ... the state or federal court having custody of such property has exclusive jurisdiction to proceed.”); accord Princess Lida v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 465-68, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 (1939) (same). However, despite this clear rule preventing duplicative proceedings in cases involving real property, no similar principle exists for other types of litigation.

B. Exceptions To The General Rule

Nevertheless, the Court has recognized a narrow exception to a district court’s obligation to exercise jurisdiction and has held that “exceptional circumstances” may justify abstention to avoid duplicative proceedings. See Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818, 96 S.Ct. 1236. The Court in Colorado River listed four factors to be considered in determining whether to defer to the concurrent jurisdiction of a state court when parallel proceedings are pending in both state and federal court. Id. The Court in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Co., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), subsequently examined two additional factors that had not been discussed in Colorado River. Collectively, these six factors are known as the Colorado River- Moses H. Cone factors, and they are as follows:

(1) whether there is a res over which one court has established jurisdiction, (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) whether maintaining separate actions may result in piecemeal litigation, unless the relevant law would require piecemeal litigation and the federal court issue is easily severed, (4) which case has priority — not necessarily which case was filed first but a greater emphasis on the relative progress made in the cases, (5) whether state or federal law controls, especially favoring the exercise of jurisdiction where federal law controls, and (6) the adequacy of the state forum to protect the federal plaintiffs rights.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 21 F.3d 259, 263 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Simon, 917 F.2d 1144, 1148 (8th Cir.1990)); accord Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 13-26, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Missouri Elec. Works, Inc., 23 F.3d 1372, 1374 (8th Cir.1994); Rivera-Puig v. Garcia-Rosario, 983 F.2d 311, 320-21 (1st Cir.1992); 40235 Washington Street Corp. v. Lusardi, 976 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir.1992); American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir.1990); Noonan South, Inc. v. County of Volusia, 841 F.2d 380, 381 (11th Cir.1988); Fuller Co. v. Ramon I. Gil, Inc., 782 F.2d 306, 308 (1st Cir. 1986); Bergeron v. Estate of Loeb, 777 F.2d 792, 798 (1st Cir.1985). “[N]o one factor is necessarily determinative; a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counselling against that exercise is required.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818-19, 96 S.Ct. 1236.

In a more recent case, Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that, in suits for declaratory judgment, federal courts have discretion whether to defer to duplicative state court proceedings. Id. at 285, 115 S.Ct. 2137. In Wilton, Seven Falls was the defendant in a state court action over the ownership and operation of several oil and gas properties. Id. at 279, 115 S.Ct. 2137. During the pendency of the state court action, Wilton, an insurance underwriter, had refused to provide a defense for Seven Falls. Id. After a three week trial, a jury entered judgment against Seven Falls and awarded damages in excess of $100 million. Id. Seven Falls sought indemnification from Wilton pursuant to several commercial liability insurance policies, but Wilton refused to indemnify Seven Falls. Id. at 280, 115 S.Ct. 2137.

Wilton sought a declaratory judgment in federal court pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking a ruling that it was not liable under the insurance policies. Id. Seven Falls subsequently filed an action in state court against Wilton, seeking indemnification. Id. Seven Falls then asked the federal court to dismiss or stay the action because of the pending state court action. Id. The district court granted the stay to avoid duplicative litigation, and both the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court affirmed. Id. at 280-81, 115 S.Ct. 2137.

Although exceptional circumstances warranting Colorado River abstention were not present, the Court unanimously concluded that the federal court had discretion to abstain under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Id. at 289, 115 S.Ct. 2137. The Court emphasized that the Act is written in discretionary terms, stating that federal court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested parties seeking such declaration.” Id. at 285, 115 S.Ct. 2137 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)). The Court noted that “[s]ince its inception, the Declaratory Judgment Act has been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants.” Id. Thus, the Court concluded that the Colorado River exceptional circumstances test was too restrictive of the district courts’ discretion in the context of suits for declaratory judgment. Id. at 289, 115 S.Ct. 2137.

Reaffirming the Brillharb standard, which was announced in 1942, the Wilton Court ruled that the district court must consider the scope and nature of the pending state court proceeding to ascertain whether the issues in controversy between the parties to the federal action, not foreclosed under applicable substantive law, can be better settled by the state court. See Wilton, 515 U.S. at 282, 115 S.Ct. 2137; Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co., 316 U.S. 491, 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942). If so, the district court must dismiss the federal action because “it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where [a parallel] suit is pending in a state court.” Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173.

Accordingly, the Wilton Court ruled that district courts have “discretion to stay or to dismiss an action seeking a declaratory judgment before trial or after all arguments have drawn to a close.” Wilton, 515 U.S. at 287, 115 S.Ct. 2137. In short, “[i]n the declaratory judgment context, the normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration.” Id. at 288, 115 S.Ct. 2137. That is so because the statute “confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.” Id. at 287, 115 S.Ct. 2137. The statutory grant of discretion, furthermore, necessarily meant that appellate review was by an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 289, 115 S.Ct. 2137.

While Wilton’s emphasis upon “practicality” and “wise judicial administration” makes clear that federal district courts are afforded greater discretion to stay or dismiss actions brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act and to defer to pending state court proceedings, the Court offered little guidance on the factors that should inform this discretion. The Eighth Circuit, in a pre-Wilton case, held that “ ‘the Colorado River/Moses H. Cone exceptional circumstances test applies to actions brought in federal court under the Declaratory Judgment Act, where diversity is the basis for federal jurisdiction, and abstention is considered on grounds that, wise judicial administration favors deference to a concurrent state court action.’ ” Murphy Oil, 21 F.3d at 261 (quoting Insurance Co. of Pa. v. Syntex Corp., 964 F.2d 829, 834 (8th Cir.1992)). While applying the Colorado River-Moses H. Cone factors to declaratory judgment actions in federal court on diversity jurisdiction, the Eighth Circuit also recognized that “declaring the test that should apply neither narrows the scope of the district court’s discretion in applying those factors nor broadens the scope of review by this Court on appeal.” Id. at 262. Thus, “although a district court should consider the Colorado River-Moses H. Cone factors before deciding to abstain from a declaratory judgment action under diversity jurisdiction where a parallel state court action is pending, we will reverse the decision ultimately made only if we determine, giving the district court the deference it is due, that the court abused its considerable discretion in applying those factors.” Id. at 263.

C. Standard Of Discretion: Colorado River or Brillhart?

1. Parallel proceedings

Before analyzing which standard of discretion applies to this case, a parallel state court proceeding is a necessary prerequisite to use of either the Colorado River-Moses H. Cone or Brillhart standards of abstention. See Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817-18, 96 S.Ct. 1236; Wilton, 515 U.S. at 279, 115 S.Ct. 2137; Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173; accord Kirkbride v. Continental Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729, 734 (9th Cir.1991) (finding Colorado River doctrine inapplicable because there was no concurrent or pending state court proceeding after case was removed to federal court); Interstate Material Corp. v. City of Chicago, 847 F.2d 1285, 1287 (7th Cir.1988) (“As an initial requirement, the concurrent state and federal court proceedings must be parallel. If they are not, the Colorado River doctrine is inapplicable.”); Crawley v. Hamilton County Comm’rs, 744 F.2d 28, 31 (6th Cir.1984) (“A necessary requirement for application of this Colorado River doctrine, however, is the presence of a parallel, state proceeding.”). Thus, an exhaustive discussion of the applicable standard is unwarranted unless and until this court determines that the two actions in this matter are parallel, and the court turns now to this inquiry.

The District argues that the pending state and federal actions in this matter are not parallel for two reasons. First, the District asserts that “the state court lawsuit has been limited to one, simple question — whether the contract condition precedent has been met and, thus, whether the contract is valid or void.” Plft’s Brief, at 3. Second, the District contends the actions are not parallel because “the state case has not yet been plead by either party to encompass a § 1926(b) argument.” Plft’s Brief, at 3. The District, however, misstates the record on both accounts.

While it is true that the sole issue on the District’s state court motion for summary judgment is whether a condition precedent to performance has been satisfied, that certainly is not the sole issue before the state court. The City’s petition seeks a declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties under the contract. Dft’s Exh. A (State Court Petition, at 2). Furthermore, the District clearly has contemplated invoking section 1926(b) as an affirmative defense in the state court action. Both the initial and amended answers to the City’s state court action specifically cite 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) and assert that “the 1990 Contract is void as against public policy, namely the Congressional policy embodied in 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b).” Dft’s Exh. B (District’s Initial Answer, at ¶ 5; District’s Amended Answer, at ¶ 5). Furthermore, the District asserts the affirmative defense that “the City’s common law claims are precluded by federal statutory compliance.” Dft’s Exh. B (District’s Amended Answer, at ¶ 9). While not specifically citing section 1926(b), this federal statute is clearly the source of law claimed to prevent the enforcement of the alleged agreement between the parties.

“A ‘suit is ‘parallel’ when substantially the same parties are contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issues in another forum[.]’ ” Interstate Material Corp. v. City of Chicago, 847 F.2d 1285, 1288 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1229 n. 1 (7th Cir.1979); and citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936)). In this case, the parties to the state court and federal court actions are not merely substantially the same; they are identical. In addition, the issues in the actions are substantially the same. In the state court action, the City seeks a declaration of its rights and duties under the contract, which necessarily will obligate the state court to decide the 1926(b) question, assuming the City’s claim survives the District’s motion for summary judgment on the condition precedent issue. Similarly, a decision in this court regarding the rights of the parties under section 1926(b) will have a preclusive effect on the District’s affirmative defenses in the state court action, which essentially mirror its federal court action. For these reasons, the two actions are “parallel” within the meaning of Colorado River and Brillhart abstention.

2. Essence of the District’s complaint

Having concluded that the pending state and federal actions in this case are parallel, the court must return to the technical arcana of abstention jurisprudence. The parties urge this court to employ the Colorado River-Moses H. Cone factors to this case. At the same time, however, the City argues that the District’s lawsuit is essentially a declaratory judgment action, even if the District seeks declaratory relief pursuant to both the Declaratory Judgment Act and section 1983. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the exceptional circumstances test does not control a case brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act: “Distinct features of the Declaratory Judgment Act, we believe, justify a standard vesting district courts with greater discretion in declaratory judgment actions than that permitted under the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test of Colorado River and Moses H. Cone.” Wilton, 515 U.S. at 285-87, 115 S.Ct. 2137; accord Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Doe, 140 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir.1998) (recognizing that Federated Rural Electricity Insurance Co. v. Arkansas Elec. Cooperatives, Inc., 48 F.3d 294 (8th Cir.1995), did not survive Wilton). Of course, this discretion is not unfettered. “[A] District Court cannot decline to entertain such an action as a matter of whim or personal disinclination.” Public Affairs Associates v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111, 112, 82 S.Ct. 580, 7 L.Ed.2d 604 (1962). Accordingly, “Wilton requires application of the Brillhart factors to [Declaratory Judgment Act suits].” Prudential Ins. Co., 140 F.3d at 789.

In Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co., 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942), the Supreme Court addressed the propriety of a federal district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action when similar litigation was pending in state court. In that case, subject matter jurisdiction was predicated upon diversity of citizenship. Id. at 403, 62 S.Ct. 1173. In upholding the dismissal, the Supreme Court “did not ... attempt a comprehensive enumeration of what in other cases may be revealed as relevant factors governing the exercise of a district court’s discretion.” Id. at 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173. However, the factors the Court relied on and which informed its decision in Brill-hart include: “the scope of the pending state court proceeding,” “whether the claims of all parties in interest can satisfactorily be adjudicated in that proceeding, whether necessary parties have been joined, whether such parties are amenable to process in that proceeding, etc.” Id.

Because different standards control the level of discretion afforded a district court’s decision whether to defer to pending state court proceedings depending upon the nature of the federal court action, this court must first determine whether, despite the District’s request for declaratory and equitable relief pursuant to section 1983, this action is primarily declaratory in nature, warranting application of the broad discretionary standard of Brillhart. The Supreme Court has not yet addressed whether the same discretion should apply when a federal court is asked to issue a declaratory judgment under authority other than the Declaratory Judgment Act, having restricted the holding of Brillhart to litigation brought pursuant to the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Other circuits have held that the Brillhart discretionary standard applies to actions seeking declaratory relief under the federal inter-pleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1385. E.g., State Auto Ins. Companies v. Summy, 234 F.3d 131, 134 n. 3 (3d Cir.2000) (applying broad Brillhart-Wilton discretionary standard to action seeking declaratory relief pursuant to interpleader statute) (citing NYLife Distributors, Inc. v. Adherence Group, Inc., 72 F.3d 371, 380 (3d Cir. 1995)); NYLife Distributors, Inc. v. Adherence Group, Inc., 72 F.3d 371, 380 (3d Cir.1995) (same), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1209, 116 S.Ct. 1826, 134 L.Ed.2d 931 (1996); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Karp, 108 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that federal courts in their discretion may dismiss or stay statutory interpleader actions in favor of ongoing state proceedings); Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Porter-Englehart, 867 F.2d 79 (1st Cir.1989) (same); see also Q3 JMC, Inc. v. Mason Plastics, Inc., 2000 WL 1229567, at *1-*2 (M.D.N.C. June 20, 2000) (same); Crommelin v. Woodfield, 1998 WL 188101, at *3 (S.D.Fla. Mar.2, 1998) (same).

In NYLife Distributors, 72 F.3d at 371, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “a motion to dismiss a federal statutory interpleader action during the pendency of a parallel state court proceeding is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Id. at 372. In that case, one of the defendants commenced a state court action following the commencement of the section 1335 interpleader action in federal court. Id. The defendant then requested that the district court defer to the state court proceedings. Id. The district court terminated the case, but the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case, ruling that “the court should have exercised its discretion to decide in which forum, federal or state, the unresolved dispute to the stake could be better determined.” Id.

Guided by the Supreme Court’s Wilton decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that Wilton was premised on “ ‘[djistinct features of the Declaratory Judgment Act,’ which in the Court’s view, ‘justify a standard vesting district courts with greater discretion in declaratory judgment actions than that permitted under the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test of Colorado River and Moses H. Cone.’ ” Id. at 378 (quoting Wilton, 515 U.S. at 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137). The court opined that Supreme Court cases, beginning in 1942 with Brillhart and ending in 1995 with Wilton, stand for the proposition that “the exceptional circumstances test is not universal and will yield in cases where the statute grants a district court the authority to decide a matter.” Id. at 379 (citing Wilton, 515 U.S. at 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137).

In its cogent analysis, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals focused on the nature of the federal interpleader statute. See id. at 374-75. Because the interpleader statute, both historically and under the statute, is a suit in equity, “[a] federal interpleader court ..., by the nature of its jurisdiction proceeds with broad discretion.” Id. at 380 (citing Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944) (stating “the essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it.”); Meredith v. City of Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 235, 64 S.Ct. 7, 88 L.Ed. 9 (1943) (stating “an appeal to the equity jurisdiction conferred on [the] federal courts is an appeal to the sound discretion which guides the determinations of courts of equity.”))- In addition, the court looked to the text, structure, purpose, and legislative history of the inter-pleader act and found that, collectively, they demonstrated a congressional grant of discretion to federal interpleader courts. See id. at 381. Notably, the court observed that “it has long been recognized that the interpleader statute is remedial, aimed at assisting a party who fears the vexation of defending multiple claims to a fund or property under his control by providing him the opportunity to satisfy his obligation in a single proceeding.” Id. at 381-82 (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 533, 87 S.Ct. 1199, 18 L.Ed.2d 270 (1967)). For these reasons, the Court of Appeals ultimately concluded that, like the Declaratory Judgment Act, “the discretionary standard enunciated in Brillhart governs a district court’s decision to dismiss an action commenced under the interpleader statute during the pendency of parallel state court proceedings.” Id. at 382.

While it is clear the Brillhart discretionary standard would apply to the City’s motion to dismiss or stay the District’s action brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, the standard to be applied to the District’s other claims is murkier. In its complaint, the District seeks the following relief: a declaration of rights and liabilities of the parties pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.; an injunction against the City from providing water service to areas within the District’s alleged service area, presumably pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the creation of a constructive trust pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and pursuant to the doctrine of en custodia legis for the facilities, customers, and revenue that are the subject of this action during the pendency of this litigation. Thus, the three bases of the relief sought by the District are (1) the Declaratory Judgment Act; (2) section 1983; and (3) the court’s equity jurisdiction.

As previously stated, the Supreme Court has ruled that actions brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act are subject to the more relaxed Brillhart standard. See Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173; Wilton, 515 U.S. at 282, 115 S.Ct. 2137. Informed by the analyses of Brillhart, Wilton, and NYLife Distributors, section 1983 is somewhat analogous to equitable statutes, such as the Declaratory Judgment Act and the interpleader statute, at least with respect to how the District has invoked its power in this case. Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 was designed to provide a “broad remedy for violations of federally protected civil rights.” Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 685, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). On its own, section 1983 provides no substantive rights. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org. 441 U.S. 600, 617, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979). “One cannot go into court and claim ‘a violation of § 1983,’ for § 1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything, but simply provides a remedy.” Id. at 600, 99 S.Ct. 1905. “Section 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 270, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (per Chief Justice Rehnquist, with three Justices joining, two Justices concurring and two Justices concurring in judgment) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979)); accord Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 3, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980) (discussing remedial nature of § 1983 and stating, “[constitution and laws” means that § 1983 provides remedies for violations of rights created by federal statute, as well as those created by the Constitution).

Thus, while section 1983 bestows upon courts a well-stocked arsenal of remedial weapons, it does not in and of itself create any rights. In this regard, it is a remedial statute, akin to the Declaratory Judgment Act and the interpleader statute. The court emphasizes that this analogy is a far cry from belittling the importance of section 1983; indeed, section 1983 places the power and the responsibility of protecting federally guaranteed rights in the hands of the courts — a task this court does not take lightly. Ordinarily, the “unflagging obligation” of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them “is particularly weighty when those seeking a hearing in federal court are asserting ... their right to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Tovar v. Billmeyer, 609 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir.1980); accord Signad, Inc. v. City of Sugar Land, 753 F.2d 1338, 1340 (5th Cir. 1985) (“Application of the test enunciated in Colorado River ... leads us to conclude that abstention was improper here. Our decision is all the more compelling inasmuch as this is a section 1983 claim in which Colorado River abstention is urged; and we see none of the exceptional circumstances justifying abstention.”).

There are, however, compelling reasons to apply the Brillhart abstention standard to the particular facts of this case. Primary among those reasons is the equitable nature of the relief sought by the District. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 734, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“The traditional role of discretion in the exercise of equity jurisdiction makes abstention easiest to justify in cases where equitable relief is sought.... ”). To the extent the court is asked to exercise its equitable powers in fashioning relief, that power is purely discretionary. Cf. Mathieu v. Gopher News Co., 273 F.3d 769, 778 (8th Cir.2001) (“ ‘In making a front pay award, the district court is not free to reject or contradict findings by the jury on issues that were properly submitted to the jury,’ although it ‘retains its discretion to consider all the circumstances in th[e] case when it determines what equitable relief may be appropriate.’ ”) (quoting Newhouse v. McCormick & Co., 110 F.3d 635, 641 (8th Cir.1997), which in turn cites Gibson v. Mohawk Rubber Co., 695 F.2d 1093, 1101 (8th Cir.1982)); Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Edwards, 243 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir.2001) (reviewing district court’s denial of equitable relief for abuse of discretion) (citing Foy v. Klapmeier, 992 F.2d 774, 779 (8th Cir.1993)); Belk v. City of Eldon, 228 F.3d 872, 883 (8th Cir.2000) (“ ‘The calculation of front pay, which is necessarily uncertain, is a matter of equitable relief within the district court’s sound discretion.’ ”) (emphasis added) (quoting Hukkanen v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs, 3 F.3d 281, 286 (8th Cir.1993)). In fact, the Supreme Court recently observed that, despite a federal court’s obligation to adjudicate claims authorized by Congress, “it has long been established that a federal court has the authority to decline to exercise its jurisdiction when it ‘is asked to employ its historic powers as a court of equity.’ ” Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 717, 116 S.Ct. 1712 (quoting Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 120, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981) (Brennan, J., concurring)).

In Quackenbush, the Supreme Court made clear that “federal courts have the power to dismiss or remand based on abstention principles only where the relief sought is equitable or otherwise discretionary.” Id. at 731, 116 S.Ct. 1712. Moreover, the Court observed that “in cases where the relief sought is equitable in nature or otherwise discretionary, federal courts not only have the power to stay the action based on abstention principles, but can also, in otherwise appropriate circumstances, decline to exercise jurisdiction altogether by either dismissing the suit or remanding it to state court.” Id. at 721, 116 S.Ct. 1712. The issues in Quacken-bush were “whether an abstention-based remand order is appealable as a final order ... and whether the abstention doctrine first recognized in Burford v. Sun Oil Co. can be applied in a common-law suit for damages.” Id. at 708, 116 S.Ct. 1712 (internal citation omitted).

While the issues in Quackenbush are not the issues in this case, Quackenbush is relevant to this motion to dismiss or stay because it instructs that “the authority of a federal court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction extends to all cases in which the court has discretion to grant or deny relief.” Id. at 718, 116 S.Ct. 1712 (citing New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 359, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989) (NOPSI), which held that mandate of federal jurisdiction “does not eliminate ... the federal courts’ discretion in determining whether to grant certain types of relief’). This is true because the federal courts’ historic equitable powers antedated any congressional statutes conferring jurisdiction upon federal courts; consequently, statutes conferring federal jurisdiction do not eliminate the courts’ “discretion in determining whether to grant certain types of relief — a discretion that was part of the common-law background against which the statutes conferring jurisdiction were enacted.” NOSPI, 491 U.S. at 359, 109 S.Ct. 2506. Here, the court could find a violation of the District’s water rights under section 1926(b), vis a vis section 1983; yet the court would be totally within its discretion to deny the District’s request to create a constructive trust, as well as the en custodia legis relief sought. Thus, despite the fact the District seeks relief pursuant to section 1983 and the doctrine of en custodia legis, the court could rightfully dismiss this action or issue a stay order if the circumstances warranted abstention, because the relief sought is purely equitable.

Nevertheless, recognizing this court’s authority to abstain is a far cry from ascertaining the applicable standard by which to determine whether a dismissal or stay is appropriate in this case. However, the Quackenbush decision is instructive because it makes a clear distinction between suits seeking equitable and, consequently, discretionary relief, and those seeking to recover money damages. There is little discussion of the application of Colorado River or Brillhart to section 1983 causes of action in the caselaw of this circuit, or any other circuit for that matter. E.g., Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598 (8th Cir.1999) (affirming district court’s decision to abstain in § 1983 case seeking monetary damages in addition to injunctive relief under Younger principles); Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, Ark., 163 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 1998) (same); Allen v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, 835 F.2d 100, 104-05 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that Younger abstention applies only to claims for injunc-tive and declaratory relief, but that Colorado River abstention is applicable to § 1983 damages claim); Forehand v. First Alabama Bank, 727 F.2d 1033, 1036 (11th Cir.1984) (applying Colorado River abstention test to § 1983 cause of action where complaint did not request any injunction, declaratory judgment or other similar remedial relief, but merely damages, and stating “Congress has deliberately afforded the section 1983 plaintiff an alternative federal forum. It is not for the courts to withdraw that jurisdiction which Congress has expressly granted under section 1983 where such a withdrawal is contrary to the purpose of Congress in extending that alternative forum.”); City of Sugar Land, 753 F.2d at 1340 (applying Colorado River factors to § 1983 case where federal plaintiff asserted claims of conversion and taking without just compensation).

The above-cited cases applied the Colorado River-Moses H. Cone factors to the parties’ motions to abstain. However, the plaintiffs in each of these cases appear to have sought money damages, as well as injunctive relief. The District’s action is distinguishable from these cases because the District seeks purely equitable relief, which is by its very nature discretionary with the court. Therefore, these cases do not offer significant guidance in light of the Quackenbush Court’s clear distinction between a district court’s authority to abstain when litigants seek purely equitable relief versus when they seek money damages.

In this regard, Horne v. Firemen’s Retirement System, 69 F.3d 233 (8th Cir. 1995), guides this court’s determination of what level of discretion should apply to the City’s motion to dismiss or stay. In Home, the federal plaintiff, Horne, was aggrieved by a mandatory retirement policy, Missouri statute, and St. Louis ordinance, which, collectively, provided that firefighters were to retire at age sixty. Id. at 235. Even though Horne had superior performance ratings, upon reaching sixty years of age, the Firemen’s Retirement System voted to retire him. Id. Horne refused to retire and continued his employment as a fire marshal. Id.

Horne filed a charge with the Equal Opportunity Commission, but three days later, the City filed a preemptive action in state court, “seeking a declaratory judgment that the decision to retire Horne was ‘lawful,’ that it could proceed to remove him from the payroll without incurring any liability, and that the Missouri statute and ordinance at issue were valid and enforceable.” Id. In anticipation of the City’s lawsuit, Horne filed an age discrimination action in federal court against the Firemen’s Retirement System and several City of St. Louis officials, pursuant to the federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the' same day that the City filed suit. Id. In his ADEA action, Horne sought “declaratory relief, an injunction to keep defendants from removing him from his job, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees.” Id. The district court, however, stayed, and later dismissed, Horne’s action, finding exceptional circumstances existed, warranting a stay under Colorado River. Id. Horne appealed the stay and ultimate dismissal. Id.

After concluding that Horne had standing to sue even though the City had never taken official action to terminate him, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s action in deferring the litigation to the state courts. Id. at 236-37. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals characterized Horne’s federal lawsuit as “one for declaratory judgment; that is, for a declaration of his rights with respect to his continued employment with any additional relief based on the court’s decree.” Id. at 236. As such, the court ruled that the district court’s discretion was guided by the Brillhart standard and that the exceptional circumstances test did not apply to Horne’s federal suit. Id. In Home, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that the district court’s decision to defer to the pending state litigation was proper, primarily because the Missouri statute and St. Louis ordinance in question had never been challenged on constitutional grounds. Id. Furthermore, the district court noted that Horne’s claims were under scrutiny by a Missouri court, and the Eighth Circuit concluded that the state court forum was adequate to protect Horne’s rights. Id.

In determining that the more lenient Brillhart standard of discretion controlled the district court’s decision in the Home case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “ ‘[t]he essential distinction between a declaratory judgment action and an action seeking other relief is that in the former no actual wrong need have been committed or loss have occurred in order to sustain the action.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Fisher-Otis Co., 496 F.2d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir.1974)). Because Horne suffered only threatened harm but no actual harm, the court concluded that “the essence of his suit is one for declaratory judgment.” Id.

Similar to Home, the District’s action is essentially one for a declaratory judgment, despite the section 1983 cause of asction. The District’s complaint asserted “actual and threatened municipal invasion and curtailment,” but because the City is in state court seeking to establish its rights to provide water service to the area the District contends it has a right to service, it is logical to conclude that neither party has disturbed the status quo. Further, despite the District’s assertion of actual damages, its failure to seek them belies any argument that they have been sustained. In addition, despite the District’s request for a constructive trust and attorney’s fees, like Home, those types of damages are purely within the court’s discretion to award and do not somehow transmute the District’s declaratory judgment action into one alleging that actual damages have been suffered. See id. (stating “[although Horne suffered a threatened harm, he has suffered no actual harm aside from unspecified emotional distress and attorney’s fees”); cf. Amerson v. Iowa, 94 F.3d 510, 513 (8th Cir.1996) (“[A] plaintiffs incidental insertion of a general claim for damages will not suffice to prevent the dismissal of a § 1983 case where the damages sought cannot be awarded without first declaring unconstitutional a state court judgment on a matter firmly committed to the states.”).

Informed by the Quackenbush and Horne decisions and guided by the Wilton Court’s analysis, this court finds that, in light of the purely equitable nature of the relief sought and the potential, but not actual, harm alleged in the District’s complaint, application of the Brillhart standard of discretion is the appropriate course of action in this case. But see Village of Westfield v. Welch’s, 170 F.3d 116, 125 n. 5 (2d Cir.1999) (stating Colorado River, not Brillhart, standard applied because “the federal action did not seek purely declaratory relief.”). In Wilton, the Court emphasized that its decision was based on the discretionary nature of the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. In this case, while section 1983 is certainly not a discretionary statute, it is remedial, and the relief sought by the District is in the nature of discretionary equitable relief. Therefore, the court will employ the Brill-hart analysis to guide its discretion.

D. Brillhart Abstention

“Noting the ‘unique and substantial discretion’ the Declaratory Judgment Act confers on federal courts, the United States Supreme Court has determined that a district court’s decision to stay or dismiss a declaratory judgment action is governed by the discretionary standard set forth in Brillhart.” Horne, 69 F.3d at 236. As previously stated, the factors enumerated in Brillhart were never intended by the Court to be an exhaustive list. See Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173. Instead, “[t]he Brillhart abstention doctrine operates to allow district courts to avoid indulging in ‘gratuitous interference’ where there is pending in state court another suit involving the same parties and ‘presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues....’” Wells’ Dairy, Inc. v. Estate of J.P. Richardson, Jr., 89 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1058 (N.D.Iowa 2000) (quoting Wilton, 515 U.S. at 282-83, 115 S.Ct. 2137). However, while not formulating a bright line rule nor a “mechanical checklist,” Brillhart does provide guidance to instruct the district court’s exercise of discretion:

The Court indicated, for example, that in deciding whether to enter a stay, a district court should examine “the scope of the pending state court proceeding and the nature of defenses open there.” [Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 495,. 62 S.Ct. 1173], This inquiry, in turn, entails consideration of “whether the claims of all parties in interest can satisfactorily be adjudicated in that proceeding, whether necessary parties have been joined, whether such parties are amenable to process in that proceeding, etc.” Id. Other cases, the Court noted, might shed light on additional factors governing a district court’s decision to stay or to dismiss a declaratory judgment action at the outset.

Wilton, 515 U.S. at 282-83, 115 S.Ct. 2137.

The scope of the state court action in this case depends in great deal upon the basis of the state court decision. For example, if the state court rules on summary judgment that a condition precedent has not been met and that this condition is sufficiently material to obviate performance, then the state court action ends there without ever reaching the section 1926(b) issue. However, if the court rules that there is a valid contract between the parties, the District will, as it set forth in its answer, raise the affirmative defense of its rights under section 1926(b).

The fact that the scope of the state court action cannot be ascertained with complete certainty at this moment, however, does not militate against abstention so much as it militates against a complete dismissal. To the extent the state court is called upon to determine the enforceability of the parties’ alleged contract, the scope of the state court action will encompass the claims asserted by the District in the federal action. With that in mind, the overlapping issues embraced by both the state and federal actions weigh in favor of surrendering jurisdiction in this matter, because the potential for conflicting results and the duplication of judicial efforts is very real. Judicial resources are scarce, and avoiding duplicative efforts and results is advantageous for both the state and federal systems. The most recent statistics released by the Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics underscore the importance of efficiency. For example, as the chart below illustrates, the Northern District of Iowa lead the nation’s ninety-four district courts in the number of trials per judge last year.

While this court would not and could not refrain from exercising jurisdiction because of a heavy case load, the statistics are relevant only in that they demonstrate the importance of avoiding duplicative efforts in such a taxed judicial system.

The Eighth Circuit has recognized that efficiency can be a valid consideration in determining whether abstention is appropriate:

Concerns of federalism and efficiency undergird the few limitations on the exercise of extant jurisdiction. These limitations invariably arise when parties undertake litigation in multiple fora. Because litigation ensues in more than one venue, a federal court’s decision not to exercise its jurisdiction does not deprive the parties of a forum in which to air their grievances. The parties may resolve their differences elsewhere.

Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d at 952-53. In this case, efficiency concerns weigh in favor of abstention because of the duplicative nature of the state and federal proceedings.

Furthermore, this case is strikingly similar in many respects to a case previously decided by this court, Wells’ Dairy, 89 F.Supp.2d at 1042. In Wells’ Dairy, this court declined to abstain from a declaratory relief action, where the federal declaratory plaintiff filed first, there was no indication of a “race to the courthouse,” and the declaratory action presented no questions of state law. Id. at 1057-61. In that case, Wells’ Dairy acquired the registered trademark on the use of the “Big Bopper” name in 1996. Id. at 1045. Wells’ Dairy marketed an ice cream cookie sandwich under this name. Id. at 1046. The “Big Bopper” name, however, was shared with J.P. Richardson, Jr., a 1950s-era rock sensation. Id. After receiving a “cease and desist” letter from the Richardson Estate, Wells’ Dairy filed a complaint in the Northern District of Iowa seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of the “Big Bopper” name did not violate the Richardson Estate’s property rights. Id. at 1045. Subject matter jurisdiction was premised on the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1061 et seq. Id. Sixteen days after Wells’ Dairy filed suit in federal court, the Richardson Estate filed an action in Texas state court against Wells’ Dairy based on a Texas state property statute. Id. The state court action was pending at the time this court ruled that abstention was not warranted. Id.

In Wells’ Dairy, this court emphasized that the presence of a federal question and the lack of any state law issues militated against abstention:

There is also persuasive authority in the Second Circuit that abstention is disfavored in those cases where federal law supplies the rule of decision or where there are no parallel state court actions. For example, in Dittmer v. County of Suffolk, 146 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that where a plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, the district court has somewhat greater discretion to abstain. Dittmer, 146 F.3d at 118. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned that “[t]o avoid wasteful and duplicative litigation, district courts may often dismiss declaratory judgment actions ‘where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties.’ ” Id. (quoting Wilton, 516 U.S. at 282, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held, however, that abstention would not be appropriate in Dittmer because none of the plaintiffs in the federal action were parties to the state action — i.e., there was no parallel state proceeding — and “because the present action involves issues of federal law only.” Id.; See also Wilton, 515 U.S. at 290, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (explaining that abstention is more appropriate where state law issues predominate).

Similarly, in Youell v. Exxon Corp., 74 F.3d 373 (2d Cir.1996), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found Wilton fundamentally distinct from the case before it because Wilton involved state law only whereas Youell involved novel issues of federal admiralty law. Youell, 74 F.3d at 376. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that the Wilton Court specifically declined to set forth the outer limits of a district court’s discretion in cases, such as this, raising issues of federal law. Id. According to the Court, “[wjhile we loathe wasting judicial resources, it would be worse to cede federal review of an issue of federal law merely because [defendant] won the race to judgment in state court.” Id. (quoting Youell v. Exxon Corp., 48 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir.1995)). The question becomes simply in which pending action can the issues in controversy be better settled. See McDonald’s Corp. v. 2502 8th Ave. Corp., 920 F.Supp. 67, 69 (S.D.N.Y.1996).

Id. at 1059.

Here, too, the presence of a federal question permeates, to the exclusion of any state law grounds, the District’s federal court action, and this fact weighs heavily against abstention. The Supreme Court stated in Moses H. Cone that “the presence of federal law issues must always be a major consideration weighing against surrender” of federal jurisdiction in deference to state court proceedings. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 26, 103 S.Ct. 927. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit has recently stated that “[t]he existence of jurisdiction usually compels its exercise.” Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 952 (8th Cir. 2001).

The Court in Moses H. Cone also noted, however, that “the source-of-law factor has less significance ... [when] the federal courts’ jurisdiction to enforce [the statutory rights in question] is concurrent with that of the state courts.” Id. In this case, Iowa courts would have concurrent jurisdiction over the District’s section 1983 claims, asserting violations of section 1926(b), and there is no reason to question the state courts’ ability to effectively protect any federally protected rights that the District may raise. See, e.g., Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 3, n. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980) (finding concurrent jurisdiction over 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits, despite federal procedural provisions in § 1988); Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 147, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988) (stating “[ajlthough it is true that the principal remedy Congress chose to provide injured persons was immediate access to federal courts, it did not leave the protection of such rights exclusively in the hands of the federal judiciary, and instead conferred concurrent jurisdiction on state courts as well”) (citing Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496, 506-07, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982)) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original); Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 283 & n. 7, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980) (noting state court forum is always available to § 1983 plaintiff as a matter of right); Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 70