Two related claims in Pennsylvania state and federal courts should not automatically result in the federal court abstaining from involvement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Aug. 21, rejecting what it said was a district judge’s overly broad definition of what constitutes a parallel proceeding in state court.
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to abstain from ruling on a declaratory judgment action sought by an insurer seeking to be relieved of having to provide coverage to a client in an underlying personal injury matter pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
