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Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

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