OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Walker G. Harman, Jr. (“Harman”) sues his former co-tenants, John Moss (“Moss”) and Moss & Moss LLP (together, “defendants”), for wrongfully evicting him and his law firm, The Harman Firm LLP (“The Harman Firm”), from a Manhattan office space they formerly shared. Harman alleges that, during a period of remote work through the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants changed the locks on the shared office space and deprived him and his law firm of use of the premises. Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They argue that this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in light of a related case pending in New York state court, which involves the same parties, near-identical state-law claims, and the same series of events as this action. They pursue abstention under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), which permits district courts to abstain from an action where a parallel state proceeding is underway. For the reasons that follow, the Court agrees that Colorado River abstention is warranted. The Court thus grants defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). I. Background1 A. The Parties’ Shared Lease and the Events of 2020 On February 12, 2018, The Harman Firm and Moss & Moss LLP entered into a commercial lease with PAS Associates, LLC (“PAS”) for shared office space. Dkt. 6, Ex. 2 (“Lease Agreement”). The Lease Agreement was personally guaranteed by Harman and Moss, who owned and were the named partners of their respective law firms. AC 13. The agreement provided that rent would be split evenly among the two firms, and that the firms would be jointly and severally liable for any payments owed to PAS. Id. 14. Throughout 2018 and 2019, the firms jointly used the space without incident. Id. 15. After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Harman alleges, he relocated to Texas to assist family members with health issues. Id. 22. He intended for The Harman Firm to “remain in New York City” and “slowly dissolve over time.” Id. 24. Harman alleges that, while employees at The Harman Firm worked remotely in early 2020, defendants “used this opportunity to have the locks changed” in the shared space. Id. 31. During this period, as a result of “unexpected and severe financial setbacks,” Harman was unable to pay his share of the rent for April and for “several months thereafter.” Id. 34. Harman alleges that defendants, despite “chang[ing] the locks and exclud[ing] [Harman] from the space,” “forc[ed] [Harman] to pay for a space that [Harman] could not use.” Id. 39. Defendants also allegedly prevented Harman from subleasing the office space, notwithstanding that the landlord, PAS, had assented to Harman’s offer to find a subtenant. Id.
43, 46. B. 2021: PAS’s Lawsuit and Harman’s Third-Party Claims On January 20, 2021, PAS, the landlord, sued both law firms (Moss & Moss LLP and The Harman Firm) and Harman individually in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, seeking to collect unpaid rent. Dkt. 6, Ex. 4 (“PAS Complaint”). On July 19, 2021, after the state court denied its motion to dismiss, The Harman Firm filed a third-party Complaint against Moss. Id., Ex. 7 (“Third-Party Complaint”). It brought five causes of action under New York law, all asserting that Moss had wrongfully evicted it from the shared premises: (1) conspiracy to illegally evict, (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) breach of contract, (4) tortious interference with contract, (5) contribution. Id. Moss later moved for summary judgment on the claims Harman brought against him, which Harman did not oppose. Id., Ex. 1 (state-court decision). PAS and Harman, in turn, filed motions for summary judgment against the other. Id. PAS also moved for a default judgment against Harman. Id. On February 2, 2023, oral argument was held. Dkt. 6-1 at 3 (“D. Mem.”). C. 2024: The State Court Rulings on the Summary Judgment Motions, and the Pending Appeal On March 12, 2024, the New York State Supreme Court granted PAS’s and Moss’s motions for summary judgment against Harman and denied Harman’s motion against PAS. See 373-381 PAS Assocs., LLC v. Moss & Moss LLP, No. 595657, 2024 WL 1076125, at *1-2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 12, 2024). In denying Harman’s motion, the Court explained that, although the premise of that motion was “that PAS [had] wrongfully evicted the Harman Firm from the subject premises by changing the locks in June 2020,” in fact, the motion was “not supported by evidence in admissible form.” Id. at *5. The court explained: [PAS]‘s submissions demonstrate that the Harman Firm was not, in fact, locked out of the subject premises…. At that time, [T]he Harman Firm had already begun plans to shutter the firm’s New York operations. PAS changed one of the two locks to the premises on April 2, 2020. However, it is undisputed that [T]he Harman Firm continued to have unimpeded access to the premises through the end of April 2020, when it voluntarily closed its New York office, moved out of the premises, stopped paying rent, and effectively ceased all operations out of the premises. Even then, however, the Harman Firm’s accountant, who remained in New York (Harman himself had moved to Texas in March 2020), continued to have access to the premises. Id. For the same reasons, the Court granted Moss’s motion for summary judgment against Harman, finding that the evidence could not support that Moss had evicted The Harman Firm, either: For the same reasons as stated above, third-party defendant John Moss’s motion…for summary judgment dismissing [T]he Harman Firm’s third-party complaint against him is also granted. The five causes of action asserted in the third-party complaint are all premised on the same contentions regarding the June 2020 lock change and the purported wrongful lockout of the Harman Firm from the premises. As just discussed, those contentions are baseless and thoroughly refuted by the admissible evidence. Id. at *6. The state court later denied Harman’s subsequent motion for reargument. See PAS Associates, LLC v. Moss & Moss LLP, No. 595657, 2024 WL 2258613, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2024). On April 10, 2024, Harman filed a notice of appeal of the March 13, 2024 decision. Dkt. 9, Ex. A. Briefing is presently underway in the Appellate Division, First Department. Dkt. 11. D. Harman’s Lawsuit in This Court On December 5, 2023, while the state-court motions for summary judgment were pending, Harman filed this federal-court diversity action against Moss & Moss LLP and Moss individually. Harman’s Complaint brings three claims, all under New York state law. Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). These are for (1) contribution, under N.Y.C.P.L.R. §1403, (2) prima facie tort, and (3) illegal lockout. AC
