New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Younger Abstention: If Case Involves Equitable Relief, the District Court May Stay or Dismiss, But If The Case Seeks Damages, the District Court May Only Stay and Not Dismiss

Download PDF

Vyas v. Morris, 2024 WL 2874284 (4th Cir. June 7, 2024):

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

 

Tarun Kumar Vyas appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and denying Vyas’ motion to reconsider. On appeal, Vyas argues the district court erred by dismissing his complaint after abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).1

 

We review for abuse of discretion both a district court’s decision to abstain under Younger and its denial of a motion to reconsider. Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. McVey, 37 F.4th 89, 95 (4th Cir. 2022); Wicomico Nursing Home v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 739, 750 (4th Cir. 2018). “[W]hen a suit” in which Younger abstention is appropriate “involves equitable or discretionary relief, a district court may either stay the suit in favor of state court action or ‘decline to exercise jurisdiction altogether by dismissing the suit or remanding it to state court.’ ” Myles Lumber Co. v. CNA Fin. Corp., 233 F.3d 821, 823 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 721 (1996)) (alteration omitted). In an action for damages, however, “a district court may stay [the] action ... but generally may not subject it to outright dismissal or remand.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

Vyas sought both damages and injunctive relief on his claims. Thus, assuming it was appropriate for the district court to abstain from ruling on Vyas’ claims, the court should have stayed, rather than dismissed, the complaint. See id. However, our review of the record also leads us to conclude that the district court did not err by dismissing Vyas’ claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (RICO), as Vyas did not state a plausible claim for relief under § 1964(c). See Lawson v. Union Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 828 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating this court can affirm on any basis apparent from the record).

 

We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Vyas’ RICO claim, vacate the remainder of the dismissal order, and remand for further proceedings.2 We deny Vyas’ pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

 

 

Footnotes

 
1

 

 We note that the district court’s dismissal order says Vyas named only one magistrate as a defendant in this action, but the complaint appears to name two different magistrates as defendants. This omission does not affect our jurisdiction over this appeal because “the district court obviously was not trying to adjudicate fewer than all the pleaded claims.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

 

 By this disposition, we express no opinion as to the merits of Vyas’ remaining claims.

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

RICO Statute of Limitations: (1) Under Separate Accrual Rule, Plaintiff May Recover Only for Additional Damages Suffered as a Result of the New Predicate Act and Not for Earlier Predicates Outside the 4-Year Limitations Period — (2) No Equitable Tolling Absent Diligence in Filing Suit — 3.25 Year Delay between Indictment and Filing Suit Too Long (Even 9 Months May Be Too Long) — “Equity Favors Those Who Diligently Pursue Their Known Rights” (Good Quote)

Sanctions: Rule 41(b) Overlaps with Inherent Power to the Extent It Authorizes Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with a Court Order — Rule 41(b) Dismissal OK for Failure to Comply with Court Order on Notice of the Drastic Ramifications and When Predicated on a Protracted Course of Dilatory Or Otherwise Improper Behavior — Dismissal Sanction May Be Upheld When Point of Noncompliance with Order Is to Accelerate Appeal

RICO and Constitutional Standing — Concrete Injury Required for Constitutional Standing (And, Thus, for Standing in RICO Case, Notwithstanding a Disagreement Among the Circuits as to Whether Concrete Injury Is Required for RICO Standing) — At the Pleading Stage, General Factual Allegations of Injury May Suffice, But They Must Be Plausible and May Not Be Conclusory

(1) RICO and Securities Fraud: Conviction Exception — Caselaw Not Uniform as to Whether Plaintiff’s Damages Must Result from Securities Fraud Directed at Plaintiff — Appeals: 4 Factors Court of Appeals Considers in Deciding Whether to Entertain Arguments Newly Raised on Appeal

RICO Statute of Limitations — Accrual: Actual or Inquiry Notice — Equitable Tolling — Courts Have Inherent Flexibility to Choose Grounds for Disposing of a Case without Reaching the Merits

Colorado River Abstention — Factors

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice