United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2, 2017, the Court issued an order staying this case for 120
days, directing the parties to file a report addressing the
status of the state foreclosure action, and stating the Court
would revisit whether a stay is proper upon the filing of
that report. See ECF No. 16. On August 30, 2017 (the
final day of the stay), the parties filed a joint status
report indicating that the depositions of Plaintiff and U.S.
Bank occurred in May 2017 and that the foreclosure matter
would be ready for a final hearing after the resolution of
several discovery disputes. See ECF No. 18. The
parties further indicated a final hearing would likely not be
set in the foreclosure matter for at least 120 days.
Id. at p. 2.
considered the reported status of the state foreclosure
action as well as the parties' prior briefs regarding the
propriety of a stay, the Court will lift the stay because it
is not warranted under either the
Younger or Colorado River abstention
doctrines. First, regarding Younger abstention, the
Court finds the reasoning in the following cases persuasive
and hereby adopts it by reference. See Agomuoh v. PNC
Fin. Servs. Grp., 2017 WL 657428, at *4-5 (D. Md. Feb.
16, 2017); Lindsay v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt., Servs.,
LLC, 2017 WL 167832 (D. Md. Jan. 17, 2017); Tucker
v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 83 F.Supp.3d 635,
643-47 (D. Md. 2015).
regarding Colorado River abstention, the Court finds
the state foreclosure action and the instant federal action
are not parallel proceedings because the actions seek
different remedies: a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the
property in the state action versus monetary damages in the
federal action. See Gannett Co. v. Clark Const. Grp.,
Inc., 286 F.3d 737, 741-43 (4th Cir. 2002) (applying
Colorado River and concluding the state and federal
actions were not parallel because “the actions seek
different remedies, ” namely “a lien and
foreclosure on the property” in the state action and
“compensatory damages” in the federal action).
Even assuming arguendo that the actions are
parallel, this case does not present “exceptional
circumstances” warranting abstention. Plaintiff
presents claims not only under state law but also under
federal law,  and these claims are not presented in the
state foreclosure action. The Supreme Court has cautioned:
When a district court decides to dismiss or stay under
Colorado River, it presumably concludes that the
parallel state-court litigation will be an adequate vehicle
for the complete and prompt
resolution of the issues between the parties. If there is any
substantial doubt as to this, it would be a serious abuse of
discretion to grant the stay or dismissal at all.
Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr.
Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28 (1983) (emphasis added). Moreover,
the Court finds the analysis in Agomuoh,
supra, is highly persuasive and adopts that
court's analysis by reference. See 2017 WL
657428, at *6 (“Plaintiffs present claims not only
under Maryland state law, but also claims under federal
statutes as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12
U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq. Weighing these considerations alone caution against
applying Colorado River abstention, which is the
‘exception, not the rule.'” (quoting
Gannett, 286 F.3d at 741)).
on the foregoing, the Court DIRECTS the
Clerk to lift the stay in this case. The parties
must submit a proposed consent amended scheduling order
within five days of the date of this Order.
IS SO ORDERED.
 See ECF Nos. 14 &
 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971). Younger abstention applies to three
“exceptional” categories of cases: (1)
“state criminal prosecutions, ” (2) “civil
enforcement proceedings, ” and (3) “civil
proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in
furtherance of the state courts' ability to perform their
judicial functions.” Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v.
Jacobs, 134 S.Ct. 584, 588 (2013).
 Colorado River Water Conservation
Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). “For
a federal court to abstain under the Colorado River
doctrine, two conditions must be satisfied. As a threshold
requirement, there must be parallel proceedings in state and
federal court. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813.
Second, ‘exceptional circumstances' warranting
abstention must exist. Id. Without establishing a
rigid test, the Supreme Court has recognized several factors
that are relevant in determining whether a particular case
presents such exceptional circumstances: (1) jurisdiction
over the property; (2) inconvenience of the federal forum;
(3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; (4)
the order in which jurisdiction was obtained; (5) whether
federal law is implicated; and (6) whether the state court
proceedings are adequate to protect the parties' rights.
Id. at 818.” Gannett Co. v. Clark Const.
Grp., Inc., 286 F.3d 737, 741 (4th Cir. 2002).
 Plaintiff asserts two federal causes
of action and seven state causes of action, specifically: (1)
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12
U.S.C. § 2605 and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41; (2)
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1692; (3) violation of the South Carolina
Unfair Trade Practices Act, SC Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10
et seq.; (4) fraud; (5) negligence; (6) negligent
training and supervision; (7) reckless and wanton training