Gray v. Gray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Evan Gray
v. Civil No. 22-cv-560-LM
Opinion No. 2023 DNH 147 P
Chester L. Gray, III, Trustee
O R D E R
Plaintiff Evan Gray brings this action against his brother, Chester L. Gray,
III (“Skip”), alleging that Skip violated his fiduciary duties as trustee of a trust
established by their father in 1996 (“the 1996 trust”). On September 11, 2023, the
court issued a procedural order asking the parties to brief the possibility of
abstention under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424
U.S. 800 (1986). Having considered the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the
court concludes that Colorado River abstention is not warranted.
Under Colorado River, “a federal court may abstain in certain instances
where there is a parallel state court proceeding, ‘based on considerations of wise
judicial administration that counsel against duplicative lawsuits.’” Glassie v.
Doucette, 55 F.4th 58, 63 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Jiménez v. Rodríguez-Pagán, 597
F.3d 18, 27 (1st Cir. 2010)). As noted in this court’s prior order raising Colorado
River’s potential applicability, this case originated in the New Hampshire Circuit
Court—Probate Division (“probate court”) when, on June 8, 2022, Evan filed a
petition in the probate court alleging that Skip violated his fiduciary duties as
trustee of the 1996 trust. Then, on November 14, 2022, Evan filed a second petition
Case 1:22-cv-00560-SM-AJ Document 38 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 4

2
against Skip in the probate court alleging additional breaches of Skip’s fiduciary
duties as trustee of the 1996 trust. Skip removed both petitions to this court. Evan
moved to remand both petitions. The court granted Evan’s motion to remand the
June petition but denied it as to the November petition. As a result, there is one
petition challenging Skip’s administration of the 1996 trust currently pending in
state court, and one petition challenging his administration of that same trust
currently pending in federal court. Concerned that the two cases may be parallel
proceedings, the court asked the parties to address the possibility of Colorado River
abstention as a basis for remanding the instant proceeding to the probate court.
However, “some duplication alone is not enough to justify” abstention.
Glassie, 55 F.4th at 64. To justify Colorado River abstention, the state court
litigation must “be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of
the issues between the parties” in federal court. Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v.
Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28 (1983). Indeed, “the decision to invoke
Colorado River necessarily contemplates that the federal court will have nothing
further to do in resolving any substantive part of the case” once the state court
action has concluded. Id.; accord Glassie, 55 F.4th at 64 (explaining that, to invoke
Colorado River abstention, “the state action must resolve all of the claims in the
federal case”). “If there is any substantial doubt” as to whether the state court
action would completely and promptly dispose of all the claims in the federal
litigation, “it would be a serious abuse of discretion to” abstain. Moses H. Cone, 460
U.S. at 28.
Case 1:22-cv-00560-SM-AJ Document 38 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 4

3
Here, while some of the issues in the instant proceeding may overlap with the
proceeding in probate court, resolution of the probate proceeding will not
necessarily determine the disposition of the claims in federal court. The instant
proceeding concerns Skip’s alleged actions and omissions during the 1996 trust’s
“Second Annual Accounting” period from May 2018 through May 2019. The
proceedings in probate court concern other alleged actions and omissions taken
during other accounting periods. The resolution of the probate court claims will not
necessarily determine the resolution of Evan’s claims in this court concerning
actions taken in 2018 and 2019.
While some of the same legal issues have arisen in the federal and probate
court—including the timeliness of Evan’s petitions and whether the savings statute
applies—Colorado River abstention “is not warranted simply because related issues
otherwise would be decided by different courts, or even because two courts
otherwise would be deciding the same issues.” Jiménez, 597 F.3d at 29 (quoting
KPS & Assocs., Inc. v. Designs by FMC, Inc., 318 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2003)).
“Rather, concerns about piecemeal litigation should focus on the implications and
practical effects of litigating suits deriving from the same transaction in two
separate fora, and weigh in favor of dismissal only if there is some exceptional basis
for dismissing one action in favor of the other.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting KPS,
318 F.3d at 10-11). Because the probate court litigation concerns different alleged
actions and omissions from different time periods than the claims in this case,
Colorado River abstention is inappropriate.
Case 1:22-cv-00560-SM-AJ Document 38 Filed 12/04/23 Page 3 of 4

4
In his brief, Evan argues that abstention is also justified under Burford v.
Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). The court asked the parties to brief Colorado River
abstention, not any other form of abstention. In addition, the court already
considered and rejected Evan’s argument for Burford abstention in its order
granting in part and denying in part Evan’s motion to remand. See doc. no. 24. The
court declines to reconsider whether Burford abstention is warranted. Cf.
Villanueva-Mendez v. Nieves Vazquez, 360 F. Supp. 2d 320, 324 (D.P.R. 2005)
(explaining that motions for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments
which could have been raised previously or to repeat arguments already made and
rejected).
CONCLUSION
The court declines to remand this case to the probate court under Colorado
River.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
December 4, 2023
cc: Evan Gray, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:22-cv-00560-SM-AJ Document 38 Filed 12/04/23 Page 4 of 4