“The prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine holds that ‘when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res.’ ” Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311, 126 S.Ct. 1735, 164 L.Ed.2d 480 (2006)). The doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction does not apply to the present action; the state court is not exercising jurisdiction over this action. This is not a case where parallel proceedings are occurring or where the parties filed independent actions in state and federal court. Instead, a single action exists in federal court following removal. Accord Maves v. First Horizon Home Loans, 461 Fed.Appx. 636, 637-38 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Maves v. First Horizon Home Loans, No.
recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud holding there is no statute of limitations on action to quiet title by landowner who was in continuous possession of property under claim of ownership holding priorexclusivejurisdiction doctrine not applicable after removal of quiet title action holding action equivalent to quiet title over navigable waters regulated and controlled by state is form of prohibited relief holding that a plaintiff in possession of property may bring suit to quiet title against any or all tenantsincommon with competing claims