ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ROBIN L. ROSENBERG, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [DE 100] of the Court's Order Denying a Stay [DE 85]. The Court applied the Colorado River doctrine in the Order Denying a Stay and sees no error in its application of the doctrine and the relevant factors or its conclusion that the doctrine does not permit a stay in this case.

Defendants contend in the Motion for Reconsideration that the Court failed to address the "potential for the Federal Action and the State Action to produce inconsistent rulings." There is no potential for "inconsistent rulings," given that the two cases are proceeding before different sovereigns, the cases have different parties and different causes of action, and collateral estoppel will not apply to issues resolved in the state case. While the state court's ruling as to whether to vacate the Stipulated Deficiency Judgment may impact the damages in this case, that is not a sufficient basis to stay this action under Colorado River. Furthermore, there exist mechanisms, such as an offset in the collection of a judgment or modification of a judgment, to remedy any impact that a subsequent state ruling may have on a judgment in this case. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (permitting a court to relieve a party from a final judgment if it "is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated" or if "applying it prospectively is no longer equitable").1

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [DE 100] is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.