Phoenix Energy, Inc. v. Breitling Royalties Corporation, 4:13-cv-00090

Phoenix Energy filed a complaint on July 30, 2013 seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not breach the contract and requesting contract reformation.
Breitling Royalties Corp. moved to dismiss on March 3, 2014 for failure to state a claim, arguing Phoenix seeks improper declaratory relief and a parallel state case dictates abstention.
Texas suit by Breitling filed Sept. 2012 in Dallas County asserts breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and fraud, seeking rescission.
Both actions center on interpreting the contract terms, determining the parties' intent, and whether Phoenix breached the contract, applying state law.
The court may abstain under the Declaratory Judgment Act when a parallel state proceeding presents the same issues between the same parties; Brillhart/Wilton guide abstention discretion.
Progress in the Texas case includes a plea to jurisdiction and interlocutory appeal; discovery and trial dates remain, supporting a stay rather than dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court should abstain or dismiss	Phoenix argues parallel state proceeding warrants abstention	Breitling argues federal claim should be dismissed under Brillhart/abstention principles	Stay, not dismissal, is appropriate; abstention warranted
Whether a stay best serves judicial efficiency and avoids time-bar issues	Phoenix seeks to avoid duplicative litigation and time bars	Breitling favors dismissal to avoid duplicative litigation	Court should stay pending Texas action disposition to preserve federal rights

Royal Indem. Co. v. Apex Oil Co., 511 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2008) (abstention when parallel state proceeding exists)
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (declaratory relief abstention guidance under Brillhart framework)
Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491 (Sup. Ct. 1942) (establishes factors for abstention in declaratory judgments)