Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-595 Section "J" (2).
May 18, 2005
ORDER AND REASONS
On Friday, May 13, 2005, the Court conducted a telephone status conference to discuss Defendants' Motion to Re-set Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. After discussing the matter with counsel, the Court determined that this matter should be dismissed without prejudice.
Rec. Doc. 16.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2005, Janice Charles and her family ("Defendants" in the instant case) filed a Petition for Damages in the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles. The Petition was amended on March 14, 2005 to identify Century Surety Company ("Plaintiff" in the instant case), who was named in the original Petition as XYZ Insurance Company. On February 22, 2005, prior to the filing of the Amended Petition, Plaintiff filed a Complaint For Declaratory Judgment requesting this Court to declare that Plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify any party to this action. Plaintiff alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Diversity of Citizenship.
Rec. Doc. 22.
Rec. Doc. 22.
Rec. Doc. 1.
Rec. Doc. 1.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act provides that "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . " may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeding such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." "[D]istrict courts possess discretion in determining whether and when to entertain an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act even when the suit otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites." "[F]ederal courts should forgo jurisdiction in declaratory judgment actions when considerations of judicial economy overwhelm." The Fifth Circuit has outlined seven nonexclusive factors a district court should consider when deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion, namely:
(1) whether there is a pending state action in which all of the matters in controversy may be fully litigated;
(2) whether the plaintiff filed suit in anticipation of a lawsuit filed by the defendant;
(3) whether the plaintiff engaged in forum shopping in bringing the suit;
(4) whether possible inequities in allowing the declaratory plaintiff to gain precedence in time or to change forums exist;
(5) whether the federal court is a convenient forum for the parties and witnesses;
(6) whether retaining the lawsuit would serve the purposes of judicial economy; and,
(7) whether the federal court is being called on to construe a state judicial decree involving the same parties and entered by the court before whom the parallel state suit between the same parties is pending.
American Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fl. v. Overton, slip copy, 2005 WL 943522, *2 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
After considering the factors listed above, the Court finds that it should not entertain this action. The applicable factors weigh in favor of the Court's exercising its discretion to dismiss the case. Specifically, there is a pending state court action where all of the matters in controversy may be fully litigated. Further, the plaintiff filed this suit in anticipation of being substituted in the state court suit for the party named as XYZ Insurance Company. Also, the federal court is a less convenient forum than the state court, which is located in the parish where the alleged incident occurred. Finally, by retaining the lawsuit, the Court would defeat the purposes of judicial economy by allowing two lawsuits concerning the same issues to proceed simultaneously. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this matter should be and hereby is DISMISSED without prejudice.