RR Street & Co. Inc. v. Transport Ins. Co.
656 F.3d 966
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Vulcan Materials sold PerSec; Street distributed it as add'l insured under Vulcan policies, including a Transport 1981 excess policy.
- Tort Actions alleging damages from PerSec proceedings against Vulcan and Street; Street and insurers seek reimbursement for defense costs and damages.
- Vulcan Action (CA state court) sought Transport's coverage obligations under four policies; issues included defense scope, underlying insurance, and horizontal exhaustion.
- Street/National Union filed Illinois federal action in 2008 seeking indemnity and related relief under the 1981 Policy; Vulcan Action consolidated in CA state court.
- In 2009 Street/National Union filed a federal damages action in the Central District of California; shortly after, Transport filed a parallel declaratory judgment action in state court against Street and National Union.
- District court remanded the Removed Action and dismissed the Federal Action under Colorado River; Street and National Union appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly remanded the Removed Action under Wilton/Brillhart. | Street/National Union favored remand to avoid duplicative state-law rulings. | Transport contends no remand since federal action could adjudicate issues. | Remand proper under Wilton/Brillhart to avoid duplicative state proceedings. |
| Whether dismissal of the Federal Action was warranted under Colorado River. | Removal action mirrors Vulcan Action; should be entertained to avoid piecemeal litigation. | Colorado River permits dismissal to consolidate proceedings in state court. | Yes, dismissal proper to avoid piecemeal litigation and promote comprehensive disposition. |
| Whether Rooker-Feldman barred review of state-court rulings. | Claims attack state-court determinations in the Vulcan Action. | No state-court judgment directly reviewed; no Rooker-Feldman bar. | Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1942) (declaratory judgment discretion to dismiss when state proceedings better resolve issues)
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1995) (declaratory judgments discretionary in presence of state proceedings)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (exceptional case to dismiss stay due to parallel state proceedings; avoid duplicative litigation)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman narrow application; not applicable here)
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (eight-factor test for Colorado River stay/dismissal)
- Huth v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 298 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2002) (needless determination of state law issues supports remand)
- Snodgrass v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 1998) (claims for damages are not subject to total discretionary dismissal under Declaratory Judgment Act)