AECOM Technical Services, Inc. v. Flatiron AECOM, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 19-cv-2811-WJM-KAS
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
FLATIRON | AECOM, LLC,
Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
ORDER RESERVING RULING ON AECOM’S MOTION FOR ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff AECOM Technical Services, Inc.’s (“AECOM”) Motion
for Anti-suit Injunction (“Motion”). (ECF No. 304.) Defendant Flatiron AECOM, LLC
(“Flatiron”) filed a response (ECF No. 308), and AECOM filed a reply (ECF No. 333).
For the following reasons, the Court for the present will reserve ruling on the
Motion.
I. BACKGROUND1
In the Motion, AECOM explains that on November 3, 2023, Flatiron filed a lawsuit
in Denver District Court styled Flatiron | Aecom, LLC and Flatiron Constructors, Inc., v.
Aecom Technical Services, Inc., Will Carrier, and Mindy Steckmest, No. 2023CV33243
(the “Denver Case”). (ECF No. 304 at 2.) According to AECOM, Flatiron “essentially
repeats the allegations of Flatiron’s dismissed negligent misrepresentation claim, ECF
1 The parties are familiar with the factual background of this litigation, which the Court
will not reiterate here. Therefore, the Court focuses on the events leading to the filing of the
Motion.
Case No. 1:19-cv-02811-WJM-KAS Document 342 filed 01/02/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
[No.] 37 ¶¶ 48–60, but adds the allegation that AECOM’s witnesses Mindy Steckmest
(its project manager during the pursuit phase, through the execution of the Subcontract)
and Will Carrier (its lead drainage designer and the engineer with the longest
continuous involvement with the Project), intentionally concealed design errors from
Flatiron until Flatiron had entered into the liability-capped Subcontract.” (Id. at 2–3.)
AECOM believes that the “primary goal of this fraud lawsuit (like the prior negligent
misrepresentation claim) is to nullify the Subcontract’s liability limitation.” (Id. at 3.)
Additionally, AECOM asserts that Flatiron “deliberately added parties on both sides of
the ‘v’ of the new state court action . . . to avoid preclusion.” (Id. at 4.)
AECOM explains that Steckmest and Carrier will be its primary fact witnesses in
the federal trial, and Flatiron’s actions in suing them personally for hundreds of millions
of dollars in damages will “necessarily rattle and intimidate them.” (Id. at 5.) Therefore,
AECOM states that it intends to ask the state court to stay the state action until the
federal action fully concludes. (Id.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) a federal court “may not grant an injunction
to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,
or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28
U.S.C. § 2283. The Supreme Court has “made clear that the statute imposes an
absolute ban upon the issuance of a federal injunction against a pending state court
proceeding” absent one of the enumerated exceptions. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S.
225, 228–29 (1972). Additionally, the Supreme Court has explained that “[a]ny doubts
as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be
Case No. 1:19-cv-02811-WJM-KAS Document 342 filed 01/02/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally
determine the controversy.” Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers,
398 U.S. 281, 297 (1970). “The explicit wording of [§] 2283 itself implies as much, and
the fundamental principle of a dual system of courts leads inevitably to that conclusion.”
(Id.)
III. ANALYSIS2
First, AECOM argues that an injunction is warranted to protect this Court’s
jurisdiction, noting that the federal action has been ongoing for at least four years and
involves significant damages, discovery, and motion practice. (ECF No. 304 at 8.) This
action is also, the Court notes, on the eve of an 18-day jury set to commence later this
month. Further, AECOM argues that the state court action is a collateral attack on this
Court’s order finding that the Subcontract’s liability cap applies in this case (ECF No.
252). (ECF No. 304 at 8.) AECOM also asks this Court to consider the impact of the
state action on Steckmest and Carrier, which AECOM argues is akin to “witness
intimidation.” (Id. at 9.)
Second, AECOM argues that an injunction is warranted to protect and effectuate
this Court’s judgment enforcing the Subcontract’s liability limitation from Flatiron’s
collateral attack. (Id.) AECOM invites the Court to address Flatiron’s fraud theory—
which Flatiron unsuccessfully attempted to bring in an eleventh-hour motion to amend
the pleadings—on the merits. (Id. at 10.) Additionally, AECOM contends that a final
judgment is not necessary because a summary judgment order is a judgment of the
court. (Id. at 11.)
2 AECOM concedes that the AIA’s first exception for expressly authorized injunctions is
not applicable. (ECF No. 304 at 7.)
Case No. 1:19-cv-02811-WJM-KAS Document 342 filed 01/02/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
In sum, AECOM asks the Court to: (1) augment its summary judgment order and
order denying Flatiron’s motion to amend (ECF Nos. 252, 275) with rulings that
Flatiron’s fraud claims are waived and futile due to lack of justifiable reliance; (2) enjoin
Flatiron and its privies, including its member-manager Flatiron Constructors, from
prosecuting the Denver Case; and (3) if the Court does not enter the injunction, AECOM
asks the Court to “remain receptive to a renewed application, particularly if the state
court does not immediately stay the state case until this federal matter reaches final
judgment.” (ECF No. 304 at 15.)
Flatiron responds that the Motion is meritless, desperate, and barred by the AIA.
(ECF No. 308 at 2.) First, Flatiron argues that the second exception to the AIA does not
apply in this case, as that circumstance “is only present when property is subject to
multiple, potentially conflicting in rem decisions.” (Id.) Second, Flatiron argues that no
injunction is necessary to protect or effectuate this Court’s judgments, as no final
judgment has been entered, rendering this exception inapplicable. (Id. at 3.)
The Court concludes that given the complexity of the competing legal arguments
on the important issues raised in the Motion, it will not at this time rule on the merits of
those arguments. Due deference to the important principle of comity as between the
federal and state courts, and their respective jurisdictional and procedural prerogatives,
compels this result at this time.
The Court further concludes that given the tangled jurisdictional and procedural
thicket created by Flatiron’s late-stage filing of the Denver Case, the interest of justice
would best be served by allowing the district judge in the Denver Case to determine, in
the first instance, whether a stay of that proceeding pending entry of final judgment in
Case No. 1:19-cv-02811-WJM-KAS Document 342 filed 01/02/24 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
this action would, or would not, be appropriate under Colorado law in the context of the
starkly disparate procedural postures of the newly-filed Denver Case and this four-year
old case which is on the eve of a four-week jury trial. After the state court judge rules
on the stay issue the Court will take the Motion up again on its merits.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that:
1. 	By no later than January 3, 2024 Flatiron will cause a copy of this Order
to be filed on the docket in the Denver Case;
2. 	By no later than January 4, 2024 Flatiron will file in this case a Certificate
of Filing attesting to its compliance with the above; and
3. 	AECOM is DIRECTED to forthwith advise this Court of any ruling by the
district judge in the Denver Case to stay, or to decline to stay, that state court action
pending entry of final judgment in this litigation.
Dated this 2 nd day of January, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:19-cv-02811-WJM-KAS Document 342 filed 01/02/24 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5