Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 97-60686
_______________________
AGORA SYNDICATE, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBINSON JANITORIAL SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED, Et Al,
Defendants,
ROBINSON JANITORIAL SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED;
TROY DODSON, Sole Wrongful Death Beneficiary
of Christy E. Massie, Deceased, ESTATE OF MASSIE,
and the Estate of Christy E. Massie, Deceased,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
July 31, 1998
Before GARWOOD, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
The district court dismissed, sua sponte, this insurance
company's declaratory judgment suit1 in deference to the underlying
liability case, pending in state court, in which the insurance
1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

company was not a party. While it is true that "[i]n the
declaratory judgment context, the normal principle that federal
courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to
considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration,"
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288, 115 S. Ct. 2137, 2143
(1995), no such efficiency concerns existed in this case. Under
these unusual circumstances, we hold that the district court abused
its discretion in declining jurisdiction. The judgment of
dismissal is therefore reversed, and the case remanded.
The facts are not in dispute. In 1992, James McClure
abducted Christy Massie from her law office. Robinson Janitorial
employed McClure as a janitor and had assigned him to clean
Massie's office building. McClure trapped Massie in the trunk of
her car, and she died. In 1995, Troy Dodson and the Estate of
Christy Massie filed a wrongful death action in Mississippi state
court against Robinson Janitorial, predicating the company's
liability on respondeat superior and negligent hiring/supervision.
In 1996, Agora, Robinson Janitorial's insurer, filed suit in
federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that McClure's actions
were not covered under Robinson Janitorial's policy and that Agora
had no duty to defend the company in the state wrongful death
action. Both Agora and Robinson moved for summary judgment on the
merits, but the district court decided, sua sponte, to abstain from
2

ruling on the declaratory judgment and dismissed the suit. Agora
timely appealed.
This court reviews the dismissal of a declaratory
judgment action for an abuse of discretion. Wilton, 515 U.S. at
289-90, 115 S. Ct. at 2144; Rowan Cos. v. Griffin, 876 F.2d 26, 28-
29 (5th Cir. 1989).
"Since its inception, the Declaratory Judgment Act has
been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial
discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants."
Wilton, 515 U.S. at 286, 115 S. Ct. at 2142. In Wilton, the
Supreme Court held that this discretion remained unaltered by the
subsequent development of abstention doctrine case law, under which
a district court's decision to abstain from entertaining a case
must satisfy the "exceptional circumstances" test. 515 U.S. at
281-82, 115 S. Ct. at 2140. Wilton discussed in the following
terms federal district courts' discretion to abstain from
entertaining a declaratory judgment action in deference to pending,
parallel state court proceedings:
[I]n deciding whether to enter a stay, a
district court should examine the scope of the
pending state court proceeding and the nature
of defenses open there. This inquiry, in
turn, entails consideration of whether the
claims of all parties in interest can
satisfactorily
be
adjudicated
in
that
proceeding, whether necessary parties have
been joined, whether such parties are amenable
to process in that proceeding, etc. Other
cases . . . might shed light on additional
3

factors governing a district court's decision
to stay or to dismiss a declaratory judgment
action at the outset. But[,] at least where
another suit involving the same parties and
presenting opportunity for ventilation of the
same state law issues is pending in state
court, a district court might be indulging in
gratuitous interference, if it permitted the
federal declaratory action to proceed.2
The factors identified in Wilton are similar to those
articulated in this court's cases discussing the issue. See, e.g.,
Southwind Aviation, Inc. v. Bergen Aviation, Inc., 23 F.3d 948,
950-51 (5th Cir. 1994); Granite State Ins. Co. v. Tandy Corp., 986
F.2d 94, 95-96 (5th Cir. 1992); Magnolia Marine Transp. Co. v.
Laplace Towing Corp., 964 F.2d 1571, 1581-82 (5th Cir. 1992);
Rowan, 876 F.2d at 28-30.
Unlike the insurer in Wilton, Agora was not a party to
the state court suit against Robinson Janitorial, but the district
court nonetheless dismissed Agora's declaratory judgment action.
The court held that: (1) Agora may intervene in the state court
suit and seek the same declaratory judgment concerning its rights
and responsibilities under the policy; (2) alternatively, Agora
could file a separate declaratory judgment action in state court;
and, (3) inasmuch as the case involves complex and novel questions
2 Wilton, 515 U.S. at 283, 115 S. Ct. at 2141 (internal
punctuation ommitted) (citing Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S
491, 495, 62 S. Ct. 1173, 1175-76 (1942)).
4

of Mississippi insurance law, comity counsels against exercising
federal jurisdiction.
Agora argues, and we agree, that none of these arguments
sustains the district court's decision. First, this is not what
the Supreme Court meant in Wilton by use of the term "parallel
state proceedings," for there is no identity of parties or issues
in the state and federal court suits. Wilton, 515 U.S. at 290, 115
S. Ct. at 2144. Agora is not a party to the state court liability
suit, it is not a party in any pending state proceeding related to
these events, and it could only bring the insurance issues before
the state courts by affirmatively intervening in the pending
liability action or commencing a separate, independent declaratory
judgment action in state court. Moreover, a state court decision
on the issues of Robinson Janitorial's vicarious liability and
negligent supervision/hiring would have no direct bearing on the
insurance company's duty to defend and the scope of policy
coverage; a federal decision on the insurance issues would likewise
have no impact on the state court liability issues. Because there
are no overlapping legal or factual issues in the wrongful death
and declaratory suits, the district court's concerns over
duplicative litigation and preclusive effect do not exist.
Second, judicial economy weighs in favor of, rather than
against, a declaratory ruling. This case had been pending in
federal court for over a year when the district court dismissed it
5

sua sponte. Robinson Janitorial never sought dismissal. Further,
Robinson concedes that there are no factual disputes between the
parties and that they have fully briefed the merits of the
insurance issues. If the abstention order is upheld, however,
Agora will be forced into the wasteful prospect of commencing the
declaratory judgment process anew in state court.
Finally, the district court's comity concern has been
overtaken by the march of Fifth Circuit law. In a recent opinion,
this court decided Mississippi insurance law issues that are very
similar, if not identical, to those involved in this case.
American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. 1906 Co., 129 F.3d 802 (5th Cir.
1997).3
In many, perhaps most, cases involving true parallel
state and federal court proceedings, some of the factors listed in
Wilton will favor a federal court's decision to abstain from
rendering a declaratory judgment and other factors will weigh
3 The insurance issues raised by Agora in the declaratory
judgment suit include:
(1)
Whether, under the policy provisions, coverage
exists for injury expected or intended from
the standpoint of the insured party;
(2)
whether McClure's intent is imputed to
Robinson Janitorial for the purposes of
determining insurance coverage; and,
(3)
whether the alleged negligent hire and
supervision claims against Robinson are
related to and interdependent on McClure's
intentional acts and, therefore, not covered
under the policy.
6

against that decision. We will generally not find an abuse of
discretion in such cases. See, e.g., Granite State, supra. Here,
however, none of the district court's asserted reasons for
abstention is supportable, the state and federal cases are not
truly parallel, and judicial economy strongly favors the court's
completion of the task that was well under way when it decided to
abstain. In short, we are constrained to conclude that the
district court abused its discretion. Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Louisiana Farm Bureau Fed'n, Inc., 996 F.2d 774, 779 (5th Cir.
1993). The judgment of dismissal is REVERSED, and the case
REMANDED for further proceedings.
7