Augustin v. Mughal
| Decision Date | 03 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1300,75-1300 |
| Citation | 521 F.2d 1215 |
| Parties | Orville J. AUGUSTIN, Appellant, v. Rafig Ahmed MUGHAL, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Donald L. Schlapprizzi, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
James E. Godfrey, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before LAY, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing appellant's diversity complaint.
Appellant filed suit against appellee in district court on February 4, 1975, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision involving three vehicles in St. Louis County, Missouri.
At the time the complaint was filed, appellant and appellee were co-defendants in a suit pending in St. Louis Circuit Court concerning the same collision. On February 28, 1975, appellee filed a motion to dismiss appellant's complaint, contending that since both parties were defendants in the pending state court action, appellant is relegated to a compulsory cross-claim in state court and is thereby foreclosed from pursuing his claim in federal court.
The district court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 1 This appeal followed.
The dismissal cannot be sustained on the theory that appellant's claim is compulsory and therefore must be asserted in the pending state proceeding. Under both federal and Missouri law it is clear that cross-claims are merely permissive rather than compulsory. Fed.R.Civ.P. 13; V.A.M.R. 55.32. Accordingly, a party to an action having a claim in the nature of a cross-claim has the option to pursue it in an independent action. See General Insurance Co. of America v. Hercules Construction Co., 385 F.2d 13, 18-19 (8th Cir. 1967); Page v. Hamilton, 329 S.W.2d 758, 767 (Mo.1959).
Under certain circumstances, counterclaims may be compulsory. However, it is clear that were appellant to assert his claim in the state action, it would properly be characterized as a cross-claim rather than a counterclaim under both federal and Missouri law. A cross-claim is one asserted against a co-party, whereas a counterclaim is brought against an opposing party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 13; V.A.M.R. 55.32. Co-parties are persons on the same side in the principal litigation. An opposing party is one who asserts a claim against the prospective counterclaimant in the first instance. See Stahl v. Ohio River Co., 424 F.2d 52 (3rd Cir. 1970); First National Bank v. Johnson County National Bank, 331 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1964). Therefore, neither federal nor Missouri rules of procedure require appellant to prosecute his cause of action in the pending state proceeding.
Despite the fact that the district court thus had proper jurisdiction to consider appellant's claim, it must further be considered whether the court could properly refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under the abstention doctrine. We conclude that it could not.
The abstention doctrine, under which a district court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction, is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the court's duty to adjudicate a controversy properly before it which may be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188-89, 79 S.Ct. 1060, 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959). The only apparent justification for abstention in the instant case is the avoidance of duplicitous litigation. Although the motives of the district court in dismissing the action on such grounds are certainly praiseworthy, the weight of authority indicates that this is an insufficient basis for abstention.
We have held that the fact that a diversity claim could be litigated in a pending state proceeding filed subsequent to institution of the federal suit does not justify dismissal on grounds of abstention. Lynch v. Porter, 446 F.2d 225 (8th Cir. 1971). Similarly, other circuits have overturned dismissal orders predicated on a finding that the claims asserted could be raised in related state court proceedings pending at the time the federal suits were filed. Ungar v. Mandell, 471 F.2d 1163 (2d Cir. 1972); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wooldridge v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
...forum, unless a balance of relative considerations, such as those enumerated above, tips toward the defendant. See Augustin v. Mughal, 521 F.2d 1215, 1217 (8th Cir. 1975); Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 910, 91 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed.2d 808 (......
-
Cottrell ex rel. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Duke
...before the federal action.” Applegate v. Devitt, 509 F.2d 106, 108–09 (8th Cir.1975) (per curiam); see also Augustin v. Mughal, 521 F.2d 1215, 1216–17 (8th Cir.1975) (per curiam). We noted that some circuits, relying on a court's inherent power to control its docket, as recognized in Landis......
-
Gerhardson v. Gopher News Co.
...Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not require Gopher News to join in the action below. See id. (a), (g); see also Augustin v. Mughal, 521 F.2d 1215, 1216 (8th Cir.1975) ( “[C]ross-claims are merely permissive rather than compulsory. Accordingly, a party to an action having a claim in the......
-
Thyssenkrupp Mexinox S.A. De C.V. v. U.S.
...___, 515 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1322 (2007). The unjust enrichment cause of action does not involve a co-party, see Augustin v. Mughal, 521 F.2d 1215, 1216 (8th Cir.1975) (per curiam) ("A cross-claim is one asserted against a co-party.... Co-parties are persons on the same side in the principal li......
-
§13.6 Analysis
...CR 13(g) uses the word "may" rather than "shall" or "must," and the pleading of a cross claim is always permissive. Augustin v. Mughal, 521 F.2d 1215 (8th Cir. The Washington Court of Appeals has held that a party's assertion of one cross claim against a coparty arising out of the transacti......