A federal judge in Pennsylvania denied attempts to send a products liability suit back to state court after concluding one of the plaintiff's suits over the same incident in front of the state court wasn't parallel to the federal litigation. On Friday, U.S. District Judge John M. Gallagher of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiff Jill Klodowski's motion to remand a products liability suit back to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, where the suit was initially filed, and where she has a related suit pending against separate defendants. After she was involved in a motor vehicle crash, Klodowski filed suit in state court against various defendants. To avoid statute of limitations concerns, the plaintiff filed a separate action in state court against Kia America, Kia Georgia, and Kia Corp., alleging the Kia Telluride she had been driving at the time of the accident was defective. Klodowski claimed she intended to consolidate the suits; however, the Kia defendants moved the suit to federal court. Klodowksi moved to remand, arguing that the court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to abstain when there is a parallel ongoing state court proceeding. The Kia defendants argued that the cases were not parallel, claiming that the facts alleged in the case are "entirely different" from the case pending in state court. Gallagher agreed with Kia, concluding there are no claims against the Kia defendants in the state court action. "Plaintiffs’ state court case concerns only the alleged negligence that caused the collision between a Ford F-450 dump truck and plaintiffs’ Kia Telluride, and it includes no allegation that the Telluride was defective. The separate federal case, by contrast, concerns injuries caused by an alleged defect in the 2023 Kia Telluride’s safety system that plaintiff was driving during the September 11, 2023 motor vehicle crash," Gallagher said. "The two actions therefore involve different facts, different defendants, and different legal theories, and are thus not parallel." In Klodowski v. Kia America, Klodowski, who was driving a 2023 Kia Telluride, claimed she was hit by a dump truck and suffered a left-arm amputation, traumatic brain injury, and stroke as a result. She initially filed suit in 2023 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against the driver of the truck, the truck's owner, and several product manufacturers. While Kia wasn't formally named, she claimed that she and Kia had been engaging in good-faith settlement discussions. While these negotiations were occurring, Klodowski amended the state-court complaint multiple times to add additional defendants. After mediation with Kia failed, and as the statute of limitations was approaching, Klodowski moved to file a third amended complaint naming the Kia defendants. However, the Philadelphia Office of Judicial Records rejected the filing, instructing that a new stipulation or motion for leave to amend was required. Klodowski claimed that obtaining leave under Pennsylvania rules was impracticable and that not all parties responded promptly to a new stipulation, and, therefore, opted to file the separate Kia action. After the action was removed to federal court, Klodowski moved to remand, arguing that the claims in both actions overlap and create parallel proceedings. The Kia defendants argued that there were no facts in the complaint regarding any defect of the Telluride. The court concluded the actions were not parallel, concluding that "because the state court action includes no claims against the Kia defendants, it cannot resolve the claims at issue in the federal action." The court further determined that even if these cases were parallel, the Colorado River factors don't establish "extraordinary circumstances" necessary for the court to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction. Gallagher noted that the doctrine has six factors to determine whether "extraordinary circumstances" exist, and concluded that most of them weighed against abstention. Gallagher concluded that the factor of the inconvenience of the federal forum weighed against abstention because the 55 miles between the Philadelphia courthouse and the federal courthouse was "a distance that does not constitute substantial inconvenience." The court reached a similar conclusion regarding the factor of piecemeal litigation, determining that there was no actual risk of inconsistency because "none of the Kia defendants are parties to the state action, and the state case does not assert any claims regarding the defectiveness of the Kia Telluride." Brian P. Crosby of Gibson McAskill & Crosby, in Amherst, New York, represented the Kia defendants and declined to comment. Albert J. Evans, of Fanelli, Evans & Patel, in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, represented the plaintiff and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.