Buzzell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Ex Rel. Residential Funding Corp.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2330
STEPHEN F. BUZZELL; KIMBERLY B. BUZZELL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, as Trustee; RESIDENTIAL FUNDING
CORPORATION, a/k/a Residential Funding Company, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00668-MHL)
Submitted: March 18, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. and Kimberly B. Buzzell, Appellants Pro Se. Jennifer
Elle Bowen, Andrew Brian Pittman, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen F. and Kimberly B. Buzzell appeal from the district
court’s order staying the proceedings in the district court
pending resolution of the state court case in which they
asserted the same claims for breach of contract and constructive
fraud arising out of the foreclosure sale of their residence. *
The action in the district court was filed against JP Morgan,
which was previously determined to be in privity with the
lenders in the action in the state court. Because resolution of
the state court proceeding will result in res judicata
application to the district court case, we have jurisdiction to
address this appeal. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury
Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); see also Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC v. David N. Martin Revocable Trust, 833 F.
Supp. 2d 552, 558 (E.D. Va. 2011) (providing standard for res
judicata).
A district court’s order granting a stay of its own
proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Maryland v.
Universal Elections, 729 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 2013). In
determining whether to grant the requested stay, the district
court should “balance the various factors relevant to the
*The proceedings continue to be stayed as to Residential
Funding Corporation due to its bankruptcy filing. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a) (2012).
2
expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the causes of
action on the court’s docket.” United States v. Ga. Pac. Corp.,
562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1977).
The pendency of a state court action does not bar a
substantially similar proceeding in federal court unless
exceptional circumstances exist. See McLaughlin v. United Va.
Bank, 955 F.2d 930, 934-35 (4th Cir. 1992). Exceptional
circumstances may be found based on the consideration of a
number of factors. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at
21-27; McLaughlin, 955 F.2d at 934; New Beckley Mining Corp. v.
Int’l Union, UMWA, 946 F.2d 1072, 1074 (4th Cir. 1991). After
considering these factors, the district court determined that
they weighed in favor of staying the proceeding. We have
reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the
district court in staying the action pending resolution of the
state court action. See Universal Elections, 729 F.3d at 375.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting
a stay of the action. 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
3