WPCK & .0[M]dvr#U& q<H擂0&8bZZ1*W_VY+E亅/Z SwO;Y.mҁ$8j)hSP_^I1)io $nxN n.Y+ֹbtCn`6YHtxxFP(|LJFl'Olz_FPvjG5,\&޾KaS? PпSȸC?sf{L߾9m@I<A@ul\ZGk\ſУgpS(FTm.r!O~@ͨRR 2yzҗw_~e{c0?S(x jCKOk&8>T%%G ]6R}7 OEN)vɔ9|zw9j PMsnل~Dc#j %+ 0D1 0Gu U: 0 U 8 nT Ng UNi UF ^ w 4 ! 0 E2 f4 a6 mJ a qNy 0{^LU6 0U 05 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0U 0C) 0l 0C B 04 0 0 0 0Z 0@ 0Z 0. 0 0 0 0`! 0%" 0" 00# 0<# 0$ 0>$ 0v % 0`% 0`% 0`B& 0`& 0`' 08b' 0' 02l( 0( 0:) 0Y) 0_-* 0 * 0j+ 0- B*. D/. D+. 0/ D/0 00 061U>1 01 0:3 0^?3 0<3 1e3U*>4UBh4b4 1u4 72'5 0cY5 5p88< @%DGHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XKXXX    =KXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regularn2s 6x2y20Backup3|xTABLE AU  $XKXXX  =KXdd=    *    _OftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation. *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7K(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SQ\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7&  d dJ)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7N(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SQ\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X7J)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong \  `&Times New Roman8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  $%&()*+ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.%2A`Arial<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Zi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    $XKXXX  =KXdd=    1    _Theliquidationordercontainednumerousotherprovisions.  Forexample,itdirectedtheCommissionertosecureallthe  propertyandrecordsofHome,orderedthattheCommissionercancel \ certaincontracts,authorizedtheCommissionertoengageincertain 2 transactions,prohibitedHomesofficersandemployeesfrom X continuingbusinesswithouttheCommissionerspermission,and . stayedanyactionsorotherattemptstocollectagainstHome. f $XKXXX  =KXdd=    2    _ThestatutoryprovisionsincludetheJohnsonAct,28U.S.C.  1342(2000)(precludingcertaininjunctionsagainststatepublic  utilityregulation),andtheTaxInjunctionAct,28U.S.C.1341 \ (2000)(precludinginjunctionsofassessment,levyandcollection 2 ofstatetaxes).Youngerv.Harris,401U.S.37(1971),and X RailroadCommissionofTexasv.PullmanCo.,312U.S.496(1941), 4 are,withBurfordandColoradoRiver,amongtheprincipalcourt   madeabstentiondoctrines.  $XKXXX  =KXdd=    3    _TheNOPSIpassagesaysthatwhereadequatestatecourtreview  isavailable,federalcourts mustdeclinetointerferewith  proceedingsorordersofstateadministrativeagencies:(1)when \ therearedifficultquestionsofstatelawbearingonpolicy 2 problemsofsubstantialpublicimport...;or(2)wherethe X exerciseoffederalreview...wouldbedisruptiveofstate . effortstoestablishacoherentpolicywithrespecttoamatterof   substantialpublicconcern._NOPSI_,491U.S.at361(quoting   ColoradoRiver,424U.S.at814).  $XKXXX  =KXdd=    4    _See_Feige_v._Sechrest_,90F.3d846,84748(3dCir.1996);  _Barnhardt_ԀMarineIns.,Inc.v.NewEng._Intl_ԀSur.ofAm.,Inc.,  961F.2d529,53132(5thCir.1992);Hartford_Cas_.Ins.Co.v. \  BorgWarnerCorp.,913F.2d419,42527(7thCir.1990);Lac  _DAmiante_ԀdeQuebec,_Ltee_v.Am.HomeAssuranceCo.,864F.2d1033,  104249(3dCir.1988);LawEnforcementIns.Co.v.Corcoran,807 \ F.3d38,4344(2dCir.1986).  $XKXXX  =KXdd=    5    _Apre_NOPSI_casethatalsohadanarrowingoutlookwasBath  MemorialHospitalv.MaineHealthCareFinanceCommission,853F.2d  1007(1stCir.1988).Bathfocusedonwhetherthefederalcourt \ wouldhavetoengagein highlyindividualizedreviewof 2 particular,firmspecificregulatorydecisions,andultimately X decidedthatafederallawattackonastateratemakingstatute .  asitiswrittendidnotmeritBurfordabstentionbecausethe   casedidnotinvolvesuchreview.Id.at1014.  $XKXXX  =KXdd=    6    _ThiscourtreservedjudgmentontheissueinFragoso,991  F.2dat883,butthemagistratejudgeherecitedsomeprecedentfor  theviewthatBurfordmightinsomecasesbetriggeredasreadily \ byastatecourtactionasbyastateagencyproceeding.E.g., 2 Quackenbush,517U.S.at733(Kennedy,J.,concurring);Feigev. X Sechrest,90F.3d846,84748,851(3dCir.1996)(affirmingan . abstentionorderindeferencetostatecourtliquidation   proceedings);seealsoQuackenbush,517U.S.at731.CompareNOPSI   (quotednote3above)referringspecificallyto"state `  administrativeagencies." !XKXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X'XXXK >X X'     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals JW >  FortheFirstCircuit  O JW XKX O  A') ` dE<` A   No.042411   @P P ROGERA._SEVIGNY_,INSURANCECOMMISSIONER, K  @P P LIQUIDATOROFTHEHOMEINSURANCECOMPANY, ! q @<< Plaintiff,Appellee,       `     h      p     @tt)v. y  @ EMPLOYERSINSURANCEOFWAUSAU, %u  @"AMUTUALCOMPANY, K  @ Defendant,Appellant.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE 4 @[Hon.JamesR._Muirhead_,U.S.MagistrateJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @'Before !q   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,  Campbell,SeniorCircuitJudge, y! andGertner, #  *      ׀DistrictJudge. %!u# A') ` dE<"` A "!%       NatashaC._Lisman_withwhomAndrewR.Levinand_Sugarman_, #' Rogers,_Barshak_Ԁ&Cohen,P.C.wereonbriefforappellant. $(   PeterC.L.Roth,SeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneral,withwhom b% ) KellyA._Ayotte_,AttorneyGeneral,wasonbriefforappellee. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $ A  SI)n$. @38511@S June9,2005 )D%0  RHC*&1" @38511 @ R ," )n$2 ? ,_* !  8XKXXXdd8Y*,X` XX* ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. Thecasebeforeuspresentsanother  variationonthequestionwhen,underthesocalledabstention x doctrines,afederalcourtshoulddefertostateproceedings.The $t appellantisEmployersInsuranceofWausau( Wausau);theappellee   isRogerA._Sevigny_,InsuranceCommissionerofNewHampshire |  ( Commissioner),actingasliquidatorofTheHomeInsurance ( x  Company("Home"),nowinsolvent.Webeginwiththebackground $  eventsandthendescribethestatecourtproceedingsandthe   federalactionnowbeforeus. ,|   ` Priortoitsinsolvency,Homewasaninsurancecompany, ( incorporatedandbasedinNewHampshire, engagedbothinproviding  insurancetocustomersandinreinsurance;areinsurerprovides 0 indemnitytoanotherinsurerforashareofpaymentsmadeunderone , ormoreoftheotherinsurerspolicies.Homeprovided  reinsurance,asdidarelatedentitycalledUSInternational 4 Reinsurance( _USI_ԀRe). 0  ` WausauisawellknownWisconsininsurer,alsoengagedin   bothinsuranceandreinsurance.WausauisHomesreinsurerunder 8!" severalreinsuranceagreementsenteredintointhe1980's(the "4$  outwardsagreements).Underseparateagreements,Homeand_USI_ԀRe $& becameWausausreinsurers(the inwardsagreements).Inthemid <&!( 1990s,quitepossiblybecauseHomeand_USI_ԀRewereencountering '8#* financialdifficulties,Wausaubegantosetoffthatis,reduceor )$,  canceloutamountsitowedtoHomeundertheoutwardsagreements @+&. _againstamountsitwasowedbyUSIReundertheinwardsagreements.  Homeisallegedlya100percentreinsurerofUSIResinsurance \ obligationsandthetwocompaniesapparentlysharedmanagementat X leastinpart.    ` HomeandUSIReobjectedtothesetoffsand,in1999, `  theyarbitratedthematterwithWausau.Oneissueraisedwas  \  whetherthedebts(owedtoWausaubyUSIRe)andthecredits(owed   toHomebyWausau)beingsetoffbyWausauwere mutual.Home d  argued,interalia,thattherewasnomutualitybecauseWausauwas `  offsettingtheobligationsofdifferententities;Wausauargued   thattherewasmutualitybecauseHomecompletelyreinsuredallof h USIResobligations.Thearbitrationpanels,withminimal d explanation,concludedthatWausaussetoffswere properand  valid. l  ` OnMarch5,2003,theNewHampshireSuperiorCourtof h MerrimackCounty(onthepetitionofthethenCommissioner)issued  arehabilitationorderwithrespecttoHome.OnJune13,2003, p  aftertheCommissionerhaddeterminedthatrehabilitationwas !l" futile,theSuperiorCourtissuedanorderofliquidationand "$ appointedtheCommissionerasHomesliquidatorunderN.H.Rev. t$&  Stat.Ann.402C:19,402C:21(I)(1998).  &p!(  ` Amongmanyotherthings,] #  1      ׀theorderenjoined thesetoff   ofanydebtowingtoTheHome;provided,however,that \ notwithstandinganythinginthisOrdertothecontrary,nothing X hereinisintendednorshallitbedeemedtostayanyrightof   setoffofmutualdebtsormutualcreditsbyreinsurersasprovided `  inandinaccordancewithRSA402C:34.Thestatutoryprovision  \  referredtostates,withcertainexceptionsnotapplicablehere,as   follows: d  8 ` Mutualdebtsormutualcreditsbetweenthe `  insurerandanotherpersoninconnectionwith 6 anyactionorproceedingunderthischapter   shallbesetoffandthebalanceonlyshallbe  allowedorpaid....h` x` x  N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.402C:34(I)(1998). d  ` TheCommissioner,onOctober8,2003,filedsuitinthe  SuperiorCourtseeking ajudgmentthat,undertheliquidation l orderandsection402C:34(quotedimmediatelyabove),setoffsonly h ofmutualdebtsandcreditswerepermissible; ajudgmentthatno  mutualityexist[ed]forthesetoffsinthiscase;andanyfurther p  reliefdeemedproperbythecourt.OnNovember20,2003,Wausau !l"  removedthecasetofederaldistrictcourt,invokingjurisdiction "$ basedinteraliaondiversityofcitizenshipasbetweenWausauand  Commissioner. \   ` TheCommissionermovedtoremandundertheBurfordand X ColoradoRiverabstentiondoctrines.Theformer,derivedfrom   Burfordv.SunOilCo.,319U.S.315(1943),requiresincertain l  circumstancesafederalcourttoabstaininfavorofstate  h  processeswherefederallitigationwouldinterferewithastate   administrativeschemeandwhereadequatestatejudicialreview p  exists.ColoradoRiverWaterConservationDistrictv.United l  States,424U.S.800,81719(1976),representsamoreamorphous  abstentiondoctrinewhosecontourscanbevariouslydescribed. t Theseareamongvariouscourtmadedoctrinesandstatutory  p directionsthatpermit,orsometimesrequire,federalcourt  abstention.^ #  2       x  ` Seekingabstentionandremand,theCommissionerurged $t thatNewHampshirehasa comprehensiveanduniformliquidation   schemethatwouldbedisruptedbytheintrusionofthefederal |  court.Wausauopposed,arguingfirstthattheprimaryissuewas (!x" itsissuepreclusiondefensethatthesetoffswereproper_because "$$ thearbitratorshaddeterminedthemtobemutual,andmore  generallythatafederalcourtdecisioninthiscasewouldnothave \ therepercussionsonHomesliquidationthattheCommissioner X claimeditwould.    ` OnSeptember7,2004,inanorderbythemagistratejudge `  towhomthecasehadbeensubmitted,see28U.S.C.636(c)(2000);  \  _D.N.H._ԀRule73.1(b)(2)(B),thedistrictcourtremandedthecaseto   thestatecourt,findingthatabstentionwasproperunderboththe d  BurfordandColoradoRiverdoctrines._Sevigny_v.EmployersIns. `  ofWausau,No.Civ.03501JM,2004WL1969871,at*4*7(_D.N.H._   Sept.7,2004)(unpublishedopinion).Wausauhasnowappealedfrom h theremandorder,thisbeingpermissibleunder_Quackenbush_v. d AllstateInsuranceCo.,517U.S.706,715(1996).   ` Thestandardofreviewastoabstentiondecisionsis l sometimessaidtobeabuseofdiscretion.SeeDunnv._Cometa_,238 h F.3d38,43(1stCir.2001). ButasweexplainedinCotterv.  Mass._Assn_ԀofLawEnforcementOfficers,219F.3d31,34(1stCir. p  2000),"abuseofdiscretion"issometimes"amisleadingphrase" !l" because"[_d]ecisions_Ԁonabstractissuesoflawarealwaysreviewed "$ denovo;andtheextentofdeferenceonlawapplicationissues t$& tendstovarywiththecircumstances."Inthiscasenothing  &p!( appearstoturnontheprecisestandardofreview. '#*  ` TheBurforddoctrineisasetofvariegatedresponses x)$, builtaroundacentraltheme."ThefundamentalconcerninBurford $+t&. _istopreventfederalcourtsfrombypassingastateadministrative  schemeandresolvingissuesofstatelawandpolicythatare \ committedinthefirstinstancetoexpertadministrative X resolution."Pub.Serv.Co.ofN.H.v.Patch,167F.3d15,24(1st   Cir.1998).Burforditselfinvolvedadueprocessclausechallenge `  inafederalcourttoadrillingpermitissuedbytheTexasagency  \  chargedwithresponsibilityforsuchregulation.TheSupremeCourt   endorsedabstention. d   ` Althoughthedueprocesschallengeraisedafederal `  issue,theSupremeCourtconcludedevensothatthisissuewas   closelyintertwinedwithcomplexissuesofstatelawandpolicy, h administeredthroughanagencysubjecttostatecourtreview,so d thatfederalcourtinterferencewaslikelytocausemoredisruption  thangood.SeeBurford,319U.S.at32325,33334.Thefederal l dueprocessissuecould,ofcourse,havebeenresolvedinstate h courtwithpossiblefurtherdirectreviewintheSupremeCourt  itself.Id.at334.  p   ` AcontrastisprovidedbyNewOrleansPublicService, !l" Inc.v.CounciloftheCityofNewOrleans("NOPSI"),491U.S.350 "$ (1989).There,acitycouncilratemakingorderwaschallengedin t$& federalcourtasinconsistentwithafederalagencyorderissuedby  &p!( theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission("FERC").Id.at35657. '#* TheSupremeCourtrejectedBurfordabstention,seeid.at36164, x)$, quitepossibly concernedwithathreattothesupremacyofthe $+t&. federalregulatoryschemeifthemeaningoftheFERCorderwere  lefttostatecourtinterpretationonreviewofthecitycouncil \ order. X  ` NOPSIissometimesviewedascuttingbackonBurford   abstention,see,e.g.,Fragosov.Lopez,991F.2d878,882(1st `  Cir.1993)( NOPSIcabinstheoperationoftheBurforddoctrine.).  \  YetNOPSIalsocontainsageneralreformulationofBurford,often   quoted,thatcanbereadexpansivelyornarrowlyandisultimately d  ambiguous._ #  3      ׀Inanycase,thereisnoSupremeCourtprecedent `  directlyinpointhere:inQuackenbushtheCourtfacedaBurford   issueinaninsuranceliquidationcasebutdisposedofiton h groundsnotrelevanthere.Quackenbush,517U.S.at73031.  d  ` Circuitprecedentisalsoofonlylimitedhelp.Oneof  ourowncases,Gonzalesv.MediaElements,Inc.,946F.2d157,157 l (1stCir.1991),foundwithminimalanalysisBurfordabstention h tobeproperinmattersinvolvinginsurancecompanyliquidation,as  havecasesinothercircuits.`  #  4      ׀Morerecently,wehaveissueda p  decisionFragosothatpointstheotherwayandpurportstolimit  ourearliercaseinlightofNOPSI.InFragoso,thelegalissue \ embeddedinafederalcourtcaseinvolvingaliquidatinginsurera X statuteoflimitationsdefenseappearedhighlyconventionaland   easilyseparablefromthestatereorganizationscheme,991F.2dat `  88385.a #  5      ׀Still,forvariousreasons,Fragosowasasomewhatweaker  \  caseforabstentionthanourown.    ` So,withoutthehelpofcleargoverningprecedentora d  selfexecutingBurfordrule,weturntoourownfacts.Indoing `  so,weremainrespectfulofBurford'scentralconcernwith   protectingstateagencyschemes;butwequalifythatconcern,in h lightofNOPSIandFragoso,withanawarenessthatsomeissues d arisinginorbearinguponsuchaproceedingcanbelitigatedin  federalcourtwithoutthreateningstatepolicyandalsothatthere l issometimesaspecialfederalinterest(e.g.,theFERCorders) h  thatBurfordabstentionmightimperil.   ` Inthiscase,Burfordabstentionwouldbethepresumptive   answerhadtheCommissionermadeanadministrativedecisionsay, \ claiminganequitablediscretiontodisallowanysetoffinjurious X toHomepolicyholdersandhadWausauthenchallengedthataction   inafederalcourtdiversitysuit.Buttheremovedlawsuithere `  wasonebroughtbytheCommissionerinstatecourttodoonlytwo  \  things:toconstrueastatestatutegoverningsetoffs(section402   C:34)andtoapplyit(orbackgroundstatelaw)toclassify d  Wausau'sattemptedsetoffasmutualornonmutual.Wausauin `  returnhasraisedadefenseofissuepreclusion.    ` Perhaps,inaliquidationschemelikeNewHampshire's,a h statecourtmightitselfbeanalogizedtoanagencyforpurposesof d Burford.b #  6      ׀ButquiteunlikeBurford,thestatelawissuespresented  inthiscaseappearconventional,arenotdiscretionarypolicyor l administrativejudgmentsandcouldariseinanycommonlawaction. h TheCommissionerassertsthatWausauseeks someformofrelief  fromtheLiquidationCourtsstayorderandthatanysuchrelief p  (orrefusaltograntsuchrelief)wouldbeanexerciseofthestate !l" courtspolicyorienteddiscretion.Thisismisleading:the  currentordertracksthestatuteanditisthestatutethat \ controlstheoutcome.Whetherornotthestatecourthassome X equitablediscretiontoforbidsetoffsallowedbysection402C:34,   theCommissionersdeclaratoryactionaskedfornosuchruling. `    ` Weagreewiththemagistratejudgethatthereadingand  \  applicationofthestatestatutemaypresent"difficultquestions   ofstatelaw."Butdifficultstatelawquestionsalonearenot d  enoughforBurfordabstention.SeeFragoso,991F.2dat883 `  (presenceofdifficultstatelawquestions, withoutmore,would   notjustifyabstention).CompareR.R.CommnofTex.v.Pullman h Co.,312U.S.496,499501(1941)(requiringabstentionwhenstate d lawisuncertainandaclarificationmightmakeresolutionofa  federalconstitutionalissueunnecessary).Burford'sconcernis l interferencewiththestateregulatoryprocess.NOPSI,491U.S.at h 361.   ` Nodoubtansweringthesetoffquestionherewilllikely p  affecttheamountofmoneyleftforpolicyholders.Butthe !l" financialeffectsontheliquidationcannotbeenough.See "$ Fragoso,991F.2dat88485.OtherwisetheCommissionercould t$& invokeBurfordineveryfederalsuitbetweenhimselfasliquidator  &p!( andanythirdpartywhohadastillunsettledtortorcontract '#* disputewiththenowinsolventinsurer,regardlessofitsactual x)$, disruptiveeffectupontheliquidation. $+t&.  ` Insum,theissuespresentedbytheremovedcasearenot  sointertwinedwithissuesofagencyauthorityorstateregulatory \ policythattheirfederalcourtresolutionwouldimperilacomplex X regulatoryscheme.Abstentionoccurs onlyinnarrowly   circumscribedsituationswheredeferencetoastates `  administrativeprocessesforthedeterminationofcomplex,policy  \  laden,statelawissueswouldserveasignificantlocalinterest   andwouldrenderfederalcourtreviewinappropriate.Fragoso,991 d  F.2dat882.Resolutionofthesetoffissuesbyastate,rather `  thanafederal,courtmightbejustifiedtoassurethatthestate   statuteisproperlyinterpreted;butforthisconcerncertification h isavailable,seeN.H.Sup.Ct.R.34(2005),leavingforfederal d courtresolutionotherissuesnotreadilycertifiable.   ` Wausauhasallegedthatevenifsection402C:34could l otherwisebereadandappliedassoughtbytheCommissioner,issue h preclusionestablishesthatsetoffisproperastothedebts  involvedhere.Further,thecompanyclaimsthatthisoutcomeis p  underpinnedbytheFederalArbitrationAct.Thisisacomplicated !l" issue,quiteapartfromanysupposedfederalinterest,which "$ involvesquestionsofhowfararbitrationrulingshaveacollateral t$& estoppeleffect,whoselawgovernsthatquestion,andwhetherthe  &p!( issuedecidedinthearbitrationisexactlythesameasthatposed '#*  undertheNewHampshirestatute. x)$,  ` Thesearenotnecessarilyfederalissues.SeeJacobsv.   CBSBroad.,Inc.,291F.3d1173,1177(9thCir.2002)(preclusive \ effectofarbitrationawardisastatelawissue);BBSNorwalkOne, X Inc.v.Raccolta,Inc.,117F.3d674,677(2dCir.1997)(same).   Butinallevents,evenassumingthattheFederalArbitrationAct `  hassomesignificance,ourdispositionwouldleaveanyfederal  \  issuesinthefederaldistrictcourt.Thecollateralestoppel   issueisitselfdistinctfromthemeaningofthestatestatute. d   ` IfBurfordabstentionisaworkinprogress,Colorado `  Riverisscarcelyaformal"doctrine"atall.ColoradoRiver   involvedtwooverlappingactionsone,afederalcourtlawsuitby h theUnitedStatesagainstnumerousdefendantstoestablishwater d rightsofitsownandofcertainIndiantribes;theother,alater  filedstateactioninvolvingsimilarclaimstowhichtheUnited l Stateswasaddedunderaspecialfederalstatuteallowingsuch h actions.ColoradoRiver,424U.S.at80506. MuchoftheSupreme  Courtdecisionfocusedonthatfederalstatute.Id.at80613. p   ` Afterresolvingthatthedistrictcourthadjurisdiction !l" tohearthefederalcase,andthatthestatecourtalsohad "$ jurisdictiontoresolvetheUnitedStatesclaims,theSupreme t$& Courtconsideredwhetherthefederalcourthadproperlyabstained  &p!( infavorofthestateproceeding.AlthoughtheCourtsaidthatno '#* thenexistingabstentiondoctrineapplied,ColoradoRiver,424U.S. x)$, at817,thedecisionconcludedthatabstentionwasnevertheless $+t&. warranted.Themainreasonswere(1)thespecialfederalstatute  encouragingunified resolutionofwaterdisputes,(2)thefactthat \ thefederalactionhadbarelybegunwhenthestateproceedings X commenced,and(3)themassiveimpactonstatelawwaterrights   thatthefederalactionwouldhavehadinlightofthelargenumber `  ofpartiesinvolved.Seeid.at81920.   \   ` ColoradoRiverisacasepeculiarlytiedtoitsownfacts $  andtothefederalstatutethereconstrued.Perhapsitsgreatest   useisasreminderthatabstentiondoctrinesarenotaclosedend ,|  collectionofexceptionstothe"virtuallyunflaggingobligationof ( thefederalcourtstoexercisethejurisdictiongiventhem."  ColoradoRiver,424U.S.at817.However,thecircumstancesof 0 thiscaseareneitherclosetothoseinColoradoRivernordothey , suggestanyreasonsforabstentionsopowerfulastojustifysome  newexceptiontothe(oftenfractured)dutyoffederalcourtsto 4 exercisejurisdiction.  0  ` Ifonewererationallyredraftingthelawallocating   casesasbetweenfederalandstatecourts,cf.AmericanLaw 8!" Institute,StudyoftheDivisionofJurisdictionBetweenStateand "4$ FederalCourts(1969),federaljurisdictioninthiscasewouldbe $& unlikely. So,too,anadhocweighingofconsiderationswould <&!( probablyfavorlettingthestatecourthandlethepresentcase, (T#* statelawissuesbeingpredominant.Butwhilemakinganadhoc )%, judgmentofitsowninColoradoRiver,theSupremeCourtmade_clear \+&. thatgenerallyitsdoctrinesgovernabstentionandthatadhoc  departuresarefortheextraordinarycase. \  ` Accordingly,wevacatethejudgmentofthedistrictcourt X andremandwithdirectionstothedistrictcourttovacateitsown   orderremandingtheremovedcasebacktostatecourt.Nothingin `  thisdecisionprecludesthedistrictcourtfromcertifying  \  appropriatestatelawissuestotheNewHampshirecourts.Each   sideistobearitsowncostsonthisappeal. d   ` Itissoordered.