Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-1450 Section M
June 14, 2000
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by defendant, Juan Briscoe, which was considered on the briefs today, June 14, 2000. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the motion is meritorious, and accordingly, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
I FACTS
Defendant, Juan Briscoe, claims that he sustained severe and disabling injuries on July 21, 1999 when he was hit in the head by a block while working aboard a fishing vessel owned and operated by plaintiff, Omega Protein, Inc. (Omega). Briscoe received medical treatment for his injuries at the time of the accident. However, according to the physician reports, he has been unwilling to undergo testing in order for his treating physician to determine future treatment or resulting disability.
Omega filed this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment seeking a determination of Briscoe's physical condition and of Omega's obligation's, if any, to pay maintenance and cure under the general maritime laws of United States. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, defendant filed suit in state court in Texas apparently making a claim under the Jones Act and also under the general maritime laws of the United States.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
The district court is obliged to consider several factors in determining whether or not to hear an action for declaratory judgment.Rowan Company, Inc. v. Griffin, 876 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1989). Those factors include 1) the existence of a pending state court proceeding in which the matters in controversy between the parties may be fully litigated, 2) whether the declaratory judgment suit is being used for the purpose of forum shopping, 3) possible inequities in permitting the plaintiff to gain precedence in time and forum, and 4) inconvenience to the parties or the witnesses. Id. None of these factors takes precedence over the others, and the district court has discretion to consider as many of the variables as it wishes. Torch Inc. v. LeBlanc, 947 F.2d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1991).
In considering these factors, the Court is satisfied that Omega is not forum shopping or attempting to reap any advantages of time. To the contrary, Omega is merely attempting to quantify and discharge its obligations as to maintenance and cure. However, the existence of a pending state court proceeding weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of this action. Although the state court proceeding may have been filed in response to the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, it has nonetheless been filed, and the claims asserted therein arise out of the same set of facts as the case before this Court. Unlike the present case, however, the Texas suit will result in complete adjudication of all claims arising out of this incident, not just piecemeal litigation of the maintenance and cure claim.
The Court is mindful of the plaintiffs desire to bring the issues of maintenance and cure to resolution without the prejudices caused by delay. However, the delay issue has been alleviated by the defendant's filing of his own suit. The Court also notes that Briscoe has stipulated that he waives all claims to maintenance and cure. Omega's concerns about the efficacy of the "stipulation" with respect to the state court petition is a matter for the state court to decide. The Court need not decide what effect, if any, the stipulation has on the present case because the other considerations previously mentioned are sufficient to warrant dismissal of this action.
Accordingly, for these reasons, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.