31-14), the allegations and claims in the state court proceedings and the pending matter are, at the very least, substantially similar, Romine, 160 F.3d at 340 (“Exact parallelism is not required; it is enough if the two proceedings are substantially similar.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). A careful balancing of the factors set forth by the Supreme Court counsel in favor of deferring to the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts.
The first and second factor weigh against abstention. Id. (indicating that the weight is against abstention where no property is at issue and neither forum is more or less convenient). While the Supreme Court has stated that “‘the presence of federal law issues must always be a major consideration weighing against surrender of federal jurisdiction in deference to state proceedings[,]’” id. at 342 (quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 26), this “‘factor has less significance where the federal courts’ jurisdiction to enforce the statutory rights in question is concurrent with that of the state courts.’”[1] Id. (quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 25). Moreover, the Michigan Election Code seems to dominate even Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Further, the remaining factors favor abstention.
“Piecemeal litigation occurs when different courts adjudicate the identical issue, thereby duplicating judicial effort and potentially rendering conflicting
- ↑ State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 1983 actions. Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 139 (1988).
22
