WMC Mortgage, LLC v. JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC4, by U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 0:12-cv-03146

WMC Mortgage, LLC sues US Bank National Association as Trustee seeking a declaration that it has no repurchase obligation under the MLSA related to Subject Loans; action filed December 19, 2012.
Securitization involved the JP Morgan-originated mortgage loans transferred to JPMAC and then to the Trust under the PSA; MLSA provided WMC with repurchase rights and warranties.
The Trust, by BNY as Securities Administrator, later sued WMC and others in New York State Court for specific performance, damages, and related relief based on the same repurchase obligations.
U.S. Bank moves to dismiss or stay the Present Action as seeking advisory opinions on state-law issues already litigated in New York action; the court must address parallel proceedings.
The court ultimately granted dismissal without prejudice, abstaining under Brillhart/Wilton and concluding the New York action will resolve the relevant state-law issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the present action should be dismissed or stayed due to parallel proceedings	WMC asserts its action is distinct and not duplicative	Defendant argues parallel NY action bars the declaratory judgment suit	Dismissal without prejudice due to parallel actions
Whether abstention is proper under Brillhart and Wilton	WMC contends for federal jurisdiction and forum choice	Court should abstain to avoid duplicative litigation	Abstention proper; action dismissed without prejudice
Whether NY action will resolve the issues and render this action unnecessary	Present action seeks pre-emptive declaration of non-liability	NY action covers the same issues and parties	Yes; state-law claims will be resolved in NY action; dismissal appropriate

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) (court may decline to exercise DJA jurisdiction when parallel state proceedings exist)
Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942) (declaratory judgments should avoid unnecessary federal intrusion in state-law disputes)
Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1990) (facial vs. factual challenges to jurisdiction; standard of review)
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Detco Indus., Inc., 426 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2005) (parallelism and efficiency considerations in abstention)
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) (no justiciable controversy; advisory opinions not allowed)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible facts, not mere conclusory statements)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarified plausibility standard for pleadings)
McClain v. American Econ. Ins. Co., 424 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) (reaffirmed subject-matter jurisdiction constraints in declaratory actions)