Neelu Pal, Md v. Jaclyn Hafter, in her individual capacity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEELU PAL, MD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JACLYN HAFTER, in her individual
capacity and as Trustee of Estate of Jacob
Hafter, Hafter Family Trust, Jacob Hafter
Trust, and Hafter Childrens Trust;
BRANDON PHILLIPS, in his individual and
as Trustee of Estate of Estate of Jacob
Hafter, Hafter Family Trust, Jacob Hafter
Trust; ESTATE OF JACOB HAFTER;
HAFTER FAMILY TRUST; JACOB
HAFTER TRUST; HAFTER CHILDREN'S
TRUST; ALEXANDER G. LEVEQUE,
Esq.; JOSHUA M. HOOD, Esq.; LAW
FIRM OF SOLOMON DWIGGINS AND
FREER LTD.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17496
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01257-JAD-DJA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
FILED
FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17496
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Neelu Pal, MD, appeals pro se from the district court’s order staying her
diversity action under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to stay under Colorado
River, and we review de novo whether the facts of a particular case conform to the
requirements for a Colorado River stay. R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transport Ins. Co.,
656 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly stayed Pal’s action under the Colorado River
doctrine in light of Pal’s parallel state court litigation because, on balance, the
factors weighed in favor of abstention. See Seneca Ins. Co., Inc. v. Strange Land,
Inc., 862 F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining the Colorado River factors).
Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 2 --