context: In sum, because the District Court's referral order does not necessarily bring an end to the federal litigation, it is not a final order for purposes of section 1291.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 236 F.3d 615, 619
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing that although the foreign action would resolve a central issue in the federal case, because "termination of the [foreign] case [would] not necessarily end the [federal] litigation," the district court's stay order was not final
citation_a.sentence: See Rickman Bros., 953 F.2d at 1443 (noting that, unlike the typical primary jurisdiction case, abstention orders are final because they end the federal courts’ role in the litigation); see also In re Kozeny, 236 F.3d 615, 619 (10th Cir.2000) (recognizing that although the foreign action would resolve a central issue in the federal case, because “termination of the [foreign] case [would] not necessarily end the [federal] litigation,” the district court’s stay order was not final).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 953 F.2d 1443, 1443
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that, unlike the typical primary jurisdiction case, abstention orders are final because they end the federal courts' role in the litigation
citation_b.sentence: See Rickman Bros., 953 F.2d at 1443 (noting that, unlike the typical primary jurisdiction case, abstention orders are final because they end the federal courts’ role in the litigation); see also In re Kozeny, 236 F.3d 615, 619 (10th Cir.2000) (recognizing that although the foreign action would resolve a central issue in the federal case, because “termination of the [foreign] case [would] not necessarily end the [federal] litigation,” the district court’s stay order was not final).