Case: 12-16182 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16182
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-00237-SDM-SPC
ALEXANDER L. KAPLAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEON KAPLAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 29, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Kaplan appeals pro se a judgment to stay his civil action against
Case: 12-16182 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Page: 2 of 3
his uncle, Leon Kaplan, for allegedly breaching his fiduciary duties as personal
representative of the estate of Mack Kaplan. The district court stayed the action in
deference to the ongoing probate of the estate in a Florida court. We affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a decision to stay an action after weighing
the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Colorado River Water Conservation
District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818–19, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 1247 (1976).
Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks and Sewer Bd., 374 F.3d 994, 996 (11th Cir.
2004). “When employing an abuse of discretion standard, we must affirm unless
we . . . determine that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has
applied an incorrect legal standard.” Id. at 996–97 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Alexander argues that the decision to stay his federal action conflicts with
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 126 S. Ct. 1735 (2006), but we disagree.
Consistent with the holding in Marshall that a federal court is obliged to exercise
its jurisdiction to consider matters that do not annul a will, invalidate the
administration of an estate, or interfere with property in the custody of the probate
court, id. at 311–12, 126 S. Ct. at 1748, the district court ruled that Alexander’s
action was not in the nature of a probate proceeding and that it had jurisdiction to
entertain Kaplan’s in personam claims against his uncle. The district court did not
abdicate its obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. See Colorado River, 424 U.S. at
2
Case: 12-16182 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Page: 3 of 3
817, 96 S. Ct. at 1246.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by staying the federal action.
The nature of the probate proceedings reveals that parallel federal and state
litigation would result in deleterious piecemeal litigation. See Moorer, 374 F.3d at
996; Ambrosia Coal and Const. Co. v. Pages Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th
Cir. 2004). Alexander has an opportunity to object to the decisions that Leon has
made in distributing the estate, see Fla. Prob. R. 5.150, 5.345, 5.400, and the
resolution of those objections will dispose of or substantially limit Alexander’s
claims that Leon breached his fiduciary duties to the estate, see Fla. Stat.
§§ 733.609(1), 733.901(1)–(2). For example, Alexander complains that Leon
acted tortuously by settling a wrongful death survivor’s claim for a low amount,
but the probate court has approved the settlement and, in so doing, “relieved
[Leon] of liability or responsibility for the compromise,” see Fla. Stat. § 733.708.
And the record supports the finding of the district court that a parallel federal
action would be wasteful. Alexander already has attempted to excuse his violation
of the discovery deadline in the federal action as necessary to accommodate the
ongoing probate proceedings.
We AFFIRM the stay of the action against Leon Kaplan.
3