Evertson v. Sibley et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KRISTER EVERTSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LILLIAN ERIKSSON SIBLEY f/k/a
LILLIAN KARIN ERIKSSON-
HEBDON, LILLIAN K. HEBDON,
LILLIAN KARIN ERIKSSON, and
LILLIAN K. HEBDON LIVING
TRUST,
Defendants.
and
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
ALASKA,
Intervenor-
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT AND STAYING CASE
Pending before the Court at Docket 52 is Plaintiff Krister Evertson’s Motion
for Entry of Judgment (the “Motion”). For the reasons described in this Order, Plaintiff’s
Motion is DENIED and this case is STAYED.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 2
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	The Federal Action
Mr. Evertson filed a Complaint in this Court on September 24, 2020, alleging
that his sister, Lillian Eriksson Sibley, fraudulently secured a quitclaim deed (the “2008
Quitclaim Deed”) to their mother’s duplex in Wasilla, Alaska (the “Wasilla Duplex”).1
Mr. Evertson’s Complaint prayed for (1) an order and judgment that the 2008 Quitclaim
Deed was void ab initio; (2) actual damages in a sum exceeding $100,000; and (3) punitive
damages in a sum exceeding $100,000.2 Ms. Sibley and her trust, the Lillian K. Hebdon
Living Trust (together, the “Sibley Defendants”) moved for an extension of time on
December 11, 20203 and did not appear again in the action until May 5, 2022.4 	In the
interim, the First National Bank of Alaska (“FNBA”) moved to intervene in this case.5
FNBA asserted that it has an interest in the Wasilla Duplex by virtue of a 2010 deed of
trust, the validity of which is predicated on the validity of the 2008 Quitclaim Deed.6
FNBA also notified the Court that Mr. Evertson had filed two similar lawsuits in state
court.7 The Court granted FNBA’s Motion to Intervene and sua sponte dismissed this case
on res judicata grounds.8 The Court found that Mr. Evertson’s claims in the instant case
were precluded by the final judgment in Palmer Superior Court Case No. 3PA-18-02570
1 Docket 1-1.
2 Id. at 4.
3 Docket 5.
4 See Docket 45.
5 Docket 13.
6 Id. at 2–3.
7 Id.
8 Docket 30 at 1–2.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 2 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 3
(hereinafter, the “2018 State Court Action”), in which the Palmer Superior Court granted
summary judgment for FNBA on the issue of whether it is a bona fide lender with regards
to the Wasilla Duplex.9 Mr. Evertson moved to vacate the Court’s dismissal Order.10 The
Court granted Mr. Evertson’s motion in part, amending its prior Order to dismiss
Mr. Evertson’s claim requesting that the 2008 Quitclaim deed be declared void ab initio,
but reviving Mr. Evertson’s claims for monetary damages based on Ms. Sibley’s alleged
forgery and fraud.11
Mr. 	Evertson 	then 	moved 	for 	an entry 	of default 	against 	the 	Sibley
Defendants.12 	The Clerk of Court entered default against the Sibley Defendants on
March 30, 2022.13 Mr. Evertson then moved for default judgment.14 On May 5, 2022, the
Sibley Defendants appeared and moved to set aside the entry of default.15 The Court denied
the Sibley Defendants’ motion, finding that the Sibley Defendants had failed to allege a
meritorious defense.16 The Court also denied Mr. Evertson’s motion for default judgment
for failure to brief the applicable standard, ordering him to file a renewed motion by July 6,
2022.17 	Mr. Evertson then moved for an extension of this deadline, arguing that the
9 This Court takes judicial notice of the state court filings referenced in this Order. Bykov
v. Rosen, 703 F. App’x 484, 487 (9th Cir. 2017); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria
Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (a court “may take notice of
proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue” (citation omitted)).
10 Docket 33.
11 Docket 36 at 2.
12 Docket 40.
13 Docket 41.
14 Docket 42.
15 See Docket 47.
16 Docket 49 at 7–13.
17 Id. at 13–16.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 3 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 4
decision in his pending appeal in Alaska Supreme Court Case No. S-17791 will affect the
amount of damages in the present case.18 The Court stayed the present action under Landis
v. North American Company, 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), pending the outcome of the Alaska
Supreme Court appeal.19
On November 18, 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its opinion,
affirming the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment on FNBA’s bona fide lender
status 	and 	reversing 	the 	Superior 	Court’s 	dismissal 	of 	Mr. 	Evertson’s 	amended
complaint.20 	The Alaska Supreme Court remanded the action for a determination of
whether Ms. Sibley acquired the 2008 Quitclaim Deed as a result of fraud which, if proven,
would render FNBA’s interest in the Wasilla Duplex void.21 	In the present motion, Mr.
Evertson moves for default judgment, asking the Court to enter judgment that, “in light of
the new Alaska Supreme Court Opinion addressed above, the 2008 quitclaim deed from
my Mother to Lillian is void as a result of fraud in the factum.”22
B. 	The State Court Actions
Mr. Evertson previously filed two similar lawsuits in state court. In the 2018
State Court Action, Mr. Evertson sued the Sibley Defendants and FNBA in Palmer
Superior Court for adverse possession and to quiet title to the Wasilla Duplex.23 	The
18 Docket 50 at 1 (“Without [the Alaska Supreme Court’s] decision the amount of damages
I have suffered cannot be ascertained.”).
19 Docket 51.
20 Evertson v. Sibley, No. S-17791, 2022 WL 17073028, at *4–8 (Alaska Nov. 18, 2022).
21 Id. at *1.
22 Docket 52 at 8.
23 This case initially was consolidated with a suit brought by the Office of Elder and Fraud
Assistance against the Sibley Defendants, but the two cases were later decoupled.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 4 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 5
Palmer Superior Court entered default against Ms. Sibley on February 12, 2020. 	On
March 5, 2020, the Palmer Superior Court granted summary judgment in FNBA’s favor on
the issue of whether FNBA is a bona fide lender. The Palmer Superior Court also dismissed
the fraud claim in Mr. Evertson’s Amended Complaint. 	Mr. Evertson moved for
reconsideration, which the Palmer Superior Court denied. Mr. Evertson then appealed the
Palmer Superior Court’s decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.
On March 26, 2020, Mr. Evertson filed another suit in Palmer Superior Court
against the Sibley Defendants, FNBA, and Mat-Su Title Agency, asserting that Ms. Sibley
had procured the 2008 Quitclaim Deed through fraud, requesting that the 2008 Quitclaim
Deed 	be 	declared 	void 	ab 	initio 	and 	that 	Mr. 	Evertson 	be 	awarded 	$100,000 	in
compensatory damages (Palmer Superior Court Case No. 3PA-20-01374CI, hereinafter,
the “2020 State Court Action”). 	On July 13, 2020, the Palmer Superior Court granted
FNBA’s Motion to Dismiss, finding that Mr. Evertson’s claims against FNBA were
precluded under the doctrine of res judicata because the Palmer Superior Court had issued
a final judgment on the merits in the 2018 State Court Action.24 Mr. Evertson filed a First
Amended Complaint, asserting a claim against the Sibley Defendants for forgery and fraud
that is virtually identical to the Complaint filed in this action.25 On November 17, 2020,
the Palmer Superior Court dismissed the 2020 State Court Action without prejudice for
failure to serve the Sibley Defendants.26
24 Docket 33-2 at 1–2.
25 Docket 33-3 at 4–6.
26 Docket 33-5.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 5 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 6
Finally, as discussed above, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its opinion in
the 2018 State Court Action on November 18, 2022, affirming the Palmer Superior’s
Court’s grant of summary judgment finding FNBA to be a bona fide lender, reversing the
dismissal of Mr. Evertson’s fraud claim, and remanding for further proceedings consistent
with its opinion.27
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“In exceptional circumstances, a federal court may decline to exercise its
‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise federal jurisdiction, in deference to pending,
parallel state proceedings.”28 A federal court’s decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation District, et al., v. United States, 424 U.S.
800 (1976) (hereinafter, “Colorado River”), “rests on considerations of wide judicial
administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive
disposition of litigation.”29 The Court’s task “is not to find some substantial reason for the
exercise of federal jurisdiction by the district court; rather, the task is to ascertain whether
there exist ‘exceptional’ circumstances, the ‘clearest of justifications,’ that can suffice
under Colorado River to justify the surrender of that jurisdiction.”30
The Ninth Circuit has recognized the following eight factors for assessing
the appropriateness of a Colorado River stay or dismissal:
27 Evertson v. Sibley, No. S-17791, 2022 WL 17073028, at *4–8 (Alaska Nov. 18, 2022).
28 Montanore Mins. Corp. v. Bakie, 867 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Colo.
River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)).
29 Id.
30 Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 26 (1983).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 6 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 7
(1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over any property
at stake; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the
desire to avoid piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which
the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law or
state law provides the rule of decision on the merits;
(6) whether the state court proceedings can adequately
protect the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to
avoid forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court
proceedings 	will 	resolve 	all 	issues 	before 	the 	federal
court.31
These factors do not represent a “mechanical checklist.”32 Rather, courts apply the factors
“in a pragmatic, flexible manner with a view to the realities of the case at hand.”33 	The
Colorado River doctrine may be raised by the Court sua sponte.34
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion for Entry of Judgment
Mr. Evertson moves for default judgment following the Alaska Supreme
Court’s decision in the 2018 State Court Action.35 Mr. Evertson states that “[i]n light of
the new Supreme Court opinion and holdings in my case regarding the fact that fraud in
the factum was not addressed by the superior court” this Court “ is free to address my fraud
in the factum claim in my complaint in the instant case.”36 However, the Alaska Supreme
Court reversed the dismissal of Mr. Evertson’s First Amended Complaint and remanded
31 R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978–79 (9th Cir. 2011).
32 United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 16).
33 Id.
34 Cotton v. Geraci, No. 18cv325-GPC(MDD), 2018 WL 1128454, at *4 (S.D. Cal.
Feb. 28, 2018) (citing Jimenez v. Rodriguez-Pagan, 597 F.3d 18, 27 n.4 (1st Cir. 2010)); P6 LA
MF Holdings SPE, LLC v. Shekhter, No. 2:17-CV-00616-RGK-SS, 2017 WL 7411154, at *14
(C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017).
35 Docket 52.
36 Id. at 4.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 7 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 8
“for a determination of whether [Ms. Sibley] acquired her deed as a result of fraud in the
factum, which, if proven, would render her title and the [FNBA’s] mortgage interest
void.”37 On remand, the Palmer Superior Court thus will be charged with examining the
same claims as those at issue in the instant action. 	This duplication of efforts raises the
risk of inconsistent or overlapping judgments relating to one property. The Court therefore
is hindered by the issue that has plagued this case from its inception—its decisions are
dependent upon, and necessarily intertwined with, those of the state court in the 2018 State
Court Action. Because it would be improper for this Court to enter a decision on the merits
of Mr. Evertson’s claims while substantially similar claims are being litigated in Palmer
Superior Court, Mr. Evertson’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is DENIED.
B. 	The Colorado River Doctrine
Due to the Court’s ongoing concern regarding the redundancy of this action,
the Court sua sponte raises the Colorado River doctrine. The Court previously stayed this
action pursuant to Landis v. North American Company, 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), pending
the outcome of the appeal in the 2018 State Court Action. Now that the Alaska Supreme
Court has rendered its decision, this Court finds that this case should be analyzed under the
narrower Colorado River doctrine. The Landis doctrine typically involves stays of limited
duration to “postpone[] resolution of the case pending some related proceeding’ that
‘typically serves only to narrow the factual or legal issues for the federal court.’”38 In
37 Evertson v. Sibley, No. S-17791, 2022 WL 17073028, at *1 (Alaska Nov. 18, 2022).
38 Pac. Structures, Inc. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., No. 21-cv-04438-HSG, 2022 WL 2673087,
at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2022) (quoting Stoltz v. Fry Foods, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1136 (D.
Idaho 2014)).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 8 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 9
contrast, Colorado River contemplates a longer stay or dismissal because that doctrine
“necessarily contemplates that the federal court will have nothing further to do in resolving
any substantive part of the case, whether it stays or dismisses.”39 As discussed above, the
Alaska’s Supreme Court decision in the 2018 State Court Action has made it clear to the
Court that this action is almost entirely duplicative of the 2018 State Court Action.
Applying the Colorado River factors below, the Court finds that this case presents the
extraordinary circumstances necessary to warrant an extended stay under the Colorado
River doctrine.
1. 	Which court assumed jurisdiction over the property at stake
This factor applies when both the federal and state forums “exercise
jurisdiction 	over 	the 	same 	property, 	and 	addresses 	the 	concern 	‘that 	the 	parallel
proceedings will result in inconsistent dispositions of such property.’”40 	In 40235
Washington St. Corp. v. Lusardi, 976 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit held that
this factor was dispositive. In that case, the appellee filed a quiet title action in state court
and subsequently filed a quiet title action in federal court concerning the same property.41
The Ninth Circuit held that “[a] quiet title action is a proceeding in rem,” and “[i]n
proceedings in rem or quasi in rem, the forum first assuming custody of the property at
issue has exclusive jurisdiction to proceed.”42 The Court concluded that, in that case, “the
39 Id. (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28
(1983)).
40 Montanore Mins. Corp. v. Bakie, 867 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Seneca
Ins. Co., Inc. v. Strange Land, Inc., 862 F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 2017)).
41 40235 Washington St. Corp. v. Lusardi, 976 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1992).
42 Id. at 589.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 9 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 10
district court was required to stay the federal quiet title action.”43 The property at stake in
this case and in the 2018 State Court Action is the Wasilla Duplex. Mr. Evertson first filed
a claim to quiet title to the Wasilla Duplex in the 2018 State Court Action and then
subsequently filed a Complaint alleging fraud in connection with the 2008 Quitclaim Deed
in this Court. 	Although the 2018 State Court Action was a quiet title action, neither the
state court nor this Court has assumed jurisdiction over the Wasilla Duplex. However, the
“concerns that animate this factor,” namely that “parallel proceedings will result in
inconsistent disposition of a single [property],” are present in this case.44 	There is a real
threat that, on remand, that the Palmer Superior Court finds that the 2008 Quitclaim Deed
was void due to fraud and this Court finds the opposite (or vice versa), leading to
inconsistent dispositions of the Wasilla Duplex. Accordingly, although the Court does not
find this factor dispositive, it strongly weighs in favor of a Colorado stay or dismissal.
2. 	The inconvenience of the federal forum
Neither forum presents an advantage as to convenience. The state and federal
fora are separated by approximately forty miles.45 This factor is neutral.
43 Id. (emphasis added).
44 Seneca Ins. Co., Inc. v. Strange Land, Inc., 862 F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 2017); see also
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 819 (1976) (discussing
“the rule requiring that jurisdiction be yielded to the court first acquiring control of property, for
the concern in such instances is with avoiding the generation of additional litigation through
permitting inconsistent dispositions of property.”).
45 See Montanore Mins. Corp. v. Bakie, 867 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) (treating this
factor as neutral when courts were separated by 200 miles).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 10 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 11
3. 	The desire to avoid piecemeal litigation
“Piecemeal litigation occurs when different tribunals consider the same
issue, thereby duplicating efforts and possibly reaching different results.”46 	The “mere
possibility of piecemeal litigation” is insufficient for this factor to favor a Colorado River
stay or dismissal—the case must ‘“raise a special concern about piecemeal litigation’ . . .
which can be remedied by staying or dismissing the federal proceeding.”47 	There is no
question that maintaining this action would result in piecemeal litigation. In fact, this Court
has been engaging in piecemeal litigation for over two years. 	There is a “highly
interdependent” relationship between this action and the 2018 State Court Action, as both
implicate the validity of the 2008 Quitclaim Deed.48 Further, the Palmer Superior Court’s
decision on remand very likely will lead to Mr. Evertson’s causes of action in the present
case being barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion. 	Given the substantial overlap
between the cases, allowing the parallel actions to proceed could only result in a duplication
of efforts. The third factor strongly favors a Colorado River stay or dismissal.
4. 	The order the courts obtained jurisdiction
This factor focuses on “the order in which the forums gained jurisdiction”49
as well as “the relative progress of the state and federal proceedings.”50 	The 2018 State
Court Action was commenced on November 1, 2018. The instant action was commenced
46 R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 979 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Am.
Int’l Underwriters, (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.1988)).
47 Id. (internal citation omitted).
48 Id. (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 819).
49 Id. at 980.
50 Montanore Mins. Corp. v. Bakie, 867 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2017).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 11 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 12
on September 24, 2020. Accordingly, the state court was the first to exercise jurisdiction
over Mr. Evertson’s claims. 	Further, the state court has made significant progress in the
2018 State Court Action. 	The Palmer Superior Court granted summary judgment for
FNBA and dismissed Mr. Evertson’s Amended Complaint. 	The Alaska Supreme Court
recently affirmed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of FNBA and
reversed and remanded the Superior Court’s decision to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
This action has not reached the stage of appellate review and has consistently been delayed
by this Court having to navigate issuing rulings without stepping on the toes of the state
court.51 Mr. Evertson should “be bound by its initial choice of the state forum, given the
substantial progress that has occurred in the state court litigation.”52 This factor weighs in
favor of a Colorado River stay or dismissal.
5. 	Source of law
This factor asks “whether federal law or state law provides the rule of
decision on the merits.”53 “[A]lthough the ‘presence of federal-law issues must always be
a major consideration weighing against’” a Colorado River stay or dismissal, “the
‘presence of state-law issues may weigh in favor of [such a stay or dismissal]’ only ‘in
some 	rare 	circumstances.’”54 	Cases 	involving 	“routine 	issues 	of 	state 	law—
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract” do not present such
51 See Docket 51.
52 Montanore Minerals, 867 F.3d at 1168.
53 R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 978 (9th Cir. 2011).
54 Travelers Indem. Co. v. Madonna, 914 F.2d 1364, 1370 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Moses
H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 26 (1983).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 12 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 13
rare circumstances.55 	In the present action, Mr. Evertson brings state law claims and
invokes the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.56 Mr. Evertson’s claims therefore are governed
entirely by Alaska law.57 Notwithstanding, claims of fraud and forgery are “routine issues
of state law” that this Court is capable of deciding.58 Accordingly, this factor is neutral.59
6. 	Whether the state court can adequately protect the rights of federal
litigants
A district court may not stay or dismiss a federal proceeding pursuant to
Colorado River “if the state proceeding cannot adequately protect the rights of the federal
litigants . . . if there is a possibility that the parties will not be able to raise their claims in
the state proceeding, a stay or dismissal is inappropriate.”60 There is no question that the
state court has the authority to address the issues in this case. 	Mr. Evertson’s claims are
brought under state law. Further, Mr. Evertson can, and has, raised his claims in the state
court proceedings. This factor weighs in favor of a Colorado River stay or dismissal.
7. 	The desire to avoid forum shopping
The forum shopping factor requires the Court to analyze whether the plaintiff
filed the federal court action “seek[ing] to avoid adverse rulings made by the state court or
to gain a tactical advantage from the application of federal court rules.”61 	This case has
55 Id.
56 Docket 1 at 3.
57 Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[U]nder
the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal
procedural law.”) (quoting Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 426 (1996)).
58 Travelers Indemnity, 914 F.2d at 1370.
59 R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 980 (9th Cir. 2011).
60 Id. at 981.
61 Travelers Indemnity, 914 F.2d at 1371.
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 13 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 14
indicia of forum shopping. 	First, Mr. Evertson has a history of filing new lawsuits
following a setback in an existing suit. 	Mr. Evertson filed the first state court action in
2018. 	In the 2018 State Court Action, summary judgment was granted in FNBA’s favor
and Mr. Evertson’s Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Evertson filed another suit in Palmer Superior Court, alleging that Ms. Sibley had
secured the 2008 Quitclaim Deed through forgery and fraud.62 	On the same day that a
Notice of Dismissal for Failure to Serve Defendant was filed in the 2020 State Court
Action, Mr. Evertson filed the instant action in federal court.63 	The 2020 State Court
Action subsequently was dismissed without prejudice. 	Mr. Evertson has acknowledged
that the First Amended Complaint in 2020 State Court Action is substantively identical to
the Complaint filed in the instant action.64 Second, a multi-year delay between the filing
of a state court action and a federal court action on the same issues evinces forum
shopping.65 	Mr. Evertson filed this action nearly two years after the 2018 State Court
Action. 	Finally, the fact that Mr. Evertson did not name FNBA in the instant action, but
named FNBA in both the 2018 and 2020 State Court Actions, suggests a desire to avoid
state court judgments. Mr. Evertson clearly knew that any judgment in the instant action
would affect FNBA’s interest in the Wasilla Duplex yet did not name FNBA as a defendant,
presumably for the purpose of asserting diversity jurisdiction. The Court does not suggest
62 Docket 33-3 at 4–6.
63 See Docket 1.
64 Docket 33 at 5.
65 Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1417 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding three- and one-half-
year delay suggests forum shopping); Am. Int’l Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co.,
843 F.2d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding two- and one-half-year delay suggests forum
shopping).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 14 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 15
that Mr. Evertson’s claims lack merit or that he has acted with malice in pursuing the same
claims in multiple forums. 	On the contrary, Mr. Evertson’s actions suggest an earnestly
held belief in the validity of his claims and a real desire for an expeditious resolution of the
issues surrounding the ownership of the Wasilla Duplex. However, filing multiple similar
lawsuits in different fora and ensnaring this Court in a tangle of state court judgments
frustrates, rather than expedites, this Court’s ability to resolve Mr. Evertson’s claims. This
factor weighs in favor of a Colorado River dismissal or stay.
8. 	Whether the state court proceedings will resolve all issues before the
federal court
The final factor considers “whether the state court proceeding sufficiently
parallels the federal proceeding.”66 The Ninth Circuit does not require “exact parallelism”
between the federal and state court actions, but the actions must be “substantially
similar.”67 “The existence of a substantial doubt as to whether the state proceedings will
resolve the federal action precludes the granting of a stay.”68 Here, the 2018 State Court
Action and present action are substantially similar because they involve the same parties
and attempt to accomplish the same goal—namely, 	determining whether the 2018
Quitclaim Deed is void due to fraud.69 	Although the Complaint in this action asserts a
claim for forgery and the 2018 State Court Action does not, this alone does not defeat the
66 R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 982 (9th Cir. 2011).
67 Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989).
68 United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1993)).
69 Montanore Mins. Corp. v. Bakie, 867 F.3d 1160, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 15 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 16
substantial similarity requirement.70 	Mr. Evertson’s forgery claim arises under state law
and Mr. Evertson is free to amend his complaint to add his forgery claim in the 2018 State
Court Action, as he did in the 2020 State Court Action. 	Further, the 2020 State Court
Action, which included a forgery claim, was dismissed without prejudice, and may be
revived. Therefore, this Court is “confident that the state court, which has had jurisdiction
over this dispute since [2018], will resolve all claims properly raised in that court.”71 The
final factor weighs in favor of a Colorado River dismissal or stay.
C. 	Balancing of the Colorado River Factors
On balance, the Colorado River factors strongly support a stay or dismissal.
Every factor supports a stay or dismissal with the exception of two, which are neutral.
Having concluded that this case presents the extraordinary circumstances necessary to
warrant application of the Colorado River doctrine, the Court next must examine whether
a stay or dismissal is appropriate here. In this case, the difference between dismissal and
a stay seems “extremely artificial”72 	As stated above, this Court is confident that the
ownership dispute regarding the Wasilla Duplex will be resolved by the Palmer Superior
Court on remand and this Court will have nothing further to do in resolving any substantive
part of the case. However, the Ninth Circuit generally requires a stay instead of a dismissal
so “that the federal forum will remain open if for some unexpected reason the state forum
70 See Nakash, 882 F.2d at 1416–17.
71 Montanore Minerals, 867 F.3d at 1170.
72 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, 17A Federal Practice and
Procedure § 4247 (3d ed. 2022).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 16 of 17

Evertson v. Sibley et al 	Case No. 3:20-cv-00238-JMK
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Staying Case 	Page 17
. . . turns out to be inadequate.”73 	Therefore, the Court will sua sponte STAY this case
pending the resolution of the 2018 State Court Action, including any appeals. Mr. Evertson
should pursue his claims in Palmer Superior Court, the forum with the most experience
with the merits of this case and that is in the best position to expeditiously resolve
Mr. Evertson’s claims. The Court emphasizes that, barring an unexpected event in which
the Palmer Superior Court does not reach the merits of Mr. Evertson’s fraud claim, this
Court will not step in and interrupt the proceedings of the state court.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Mr. Evertson’s Motion for Entry of Judgement is DENIED. 	This matter is
STAYED pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine. Mr. Evertson is directed to file a status
report in this case within thirty days of a final decision in the 2018 State Court Action,
including any appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage,
Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
73 Montanore Minerals, 867 F.3d at 1170 (quoting Attwood v. Mendocino Coast Dist.
Hosp., 886 F.2d 241, 243 (9th Cir. 1989)).
Case 3:20-cv-00238-JMK Document 53 Filed 12/12/22 Page 17 of 17