CA1: Younger abstention in a lien fight

Rossi et al v. Gemma et al., 06-2020 & 06-2021 (5/31/07). This case concludes that Younger abstention is warranted (see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). Anyway, what began as a lien enforcement proceeding (see Gem Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Rossi, 867 A.2d 798, 800, 818 (R.I. 2005) holding that Rhode Island’s mechanic’s lien statute was constitutional after it was amended in reaction to the lower state court proceedings), and was followed by a § 1983 action in a federal court, raising similar “but not necessarily identical issues” is now sitting in two places. The lien enforcement proceeding is in Superior Court where there are still statutory arguments regarding the validity of the lien left to be resolved, and the § 1983 action is here, after being dismissed on  Rooker-Feldman grounds by the District Court. This § 1983 action now also seeks to recover monies paid into the state court (by naming the clerk of the court) – and another § 1983 lawsuit as well against the lienholder.

If you keep reading, you will get the gift of knowledge.  Or something.

The First does note that a Court of Appeals can order abstention even if it wasn’t raised below.  So, even though the District Court thought the plaintiffs were re litigating the issue and the parties should have raised the 1983 claims as a defense to the lien enforcement claims, the First says that the Federal courts should have abstained.  So, by the time people get to the First Circuit, the parties are quibbling over exactly what issues the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed.

Finally, just in case you don’t know, the grounds for Younger abstention are when the when the requested relief would interfere:

1. with an ongoing state judicial proceeding;
2. that implicates an important state interest (see Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (1987) (dealing with statute judicial proceedings); and
3. that provides an adequate opportunity for the federal plaintiff to advance his federal constitutional challenge.

The First finds that Younger abstention is warranted on the equitable claims as well as the damages claims.  But, it notes that in damages claims, abstention comes in the form of a damages action, rather than a dismissal. 

There were also state-law claims for slander of title.  And the First affirms this, but makes it clear that such dismissal must be without prejudice. 

There are some interesting footnotes, regarding whether Rhode Island’s rules prevent them from making as-applied challenges, and those might provide food for thought in similar situations.

DotD comments here.