The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-3498.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 29, 1993.
996 F.2d 774
Saundra D. Alessi, Dennis Whalen, Baton Rouge, LA, for Gertrude Schexnayder.
Michael M. Distefano, Richard J. Ward, Jr., Cashio & Ward, Maringouin, LA, for Ashley C. Hurdle.
Before JOHNSON, GARWOOD, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:
On April 21, 1992, after two years of litigation and the resolution of the Travelers Insurance Company‘s claims against eighteen of nineteen defendants, the district court dismissed the Company‘s cause of action against the remaining defendant, Miss Ashley Claire Hurdle. Finding support in Torch, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 947 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.1991), the court decided to abstain in this declaratory judgment action. The Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers“) appeals. Finding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Travelers’ suit against Miss Hurdle, we reverse.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Effective January 1, 1982, Travelers issued an annual health and accident insurance policy to the Louisiana F.B. Service Company, Inc. (“Farm Bureau“). The policy provided benefits to those Farm Bureau members and dependents who were enrolled in the plan. Travelers provided an annual policy which the Farm Bureau renewed each year through 1989, when Travelers decided to discontinue coverage of Farm Bureau members. Members and dependents who had been diagnosed with terminal illnesses were highly displeased with Travelers’ decision. Believing that Louisiana law prohibited Travelers from unilaterally terminating their insurance policy,1 many of the members—Louisiana and Mississippi residents—retained counsel and sent demand letters to Travelers. They insisted that Travelers not terminate their medical coverage. Several members also filed lawsuits.2
On December 4, 1989, Ashley Claire Hurdle, a dependent of a Farm Bureau member, also filed suit against Travelers in the 18th Judicial Court in Iberville Parish. Ashley had been diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in March of that year. Like the other Farm Bureau members who had filed suit against Travelers, Ashley filed a declaratory judgment action in state court, petitioning that court to define her rights under Travelers’ insurance policy in light of
On November 15, 1991, Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment against Miss Hurdle. Both parties agreed that no material issues of fact existed in the case and that summary judgment—for one or the other party—was appropriate. Instead of ruling on the summary judgment motion, however, the district court, sua sponte, raised the issue of abstention. Reviewing the then newly-released opinion in Torch, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 947 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.1991), the court directed the parties to present briefs on whether it should abstain from deciding the substantive issues in the case. Travelers argued against abstention. Miss Hurdle neither supported nor opposed it.4 The court, without analyzing the facts of this case in light of the pertinent abstention factors, dismissed Travelers’ cause of action against Miss Hurdle on April 21, 1992—more than two years after Travelers had initiated the suit. Arguing that the court abused its discretion by dismissing the case, Travelers appeals.
II. Discussion
A. Availability of Declaratory Judgment
Prior to determining whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to review the merits of this case, this Court must first determine whether the district court had authority to grant a declaratory judgment here. The Fifth Circuit has decided that when a state lawsuit is pending, more often than not, issuing a declaratory judgment will be tantamount to issuing an injunction—providing the declaratory plaintiff an end run around the requirements of the Anti-Injunction Act.5 Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass‘n v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491, 506 (5th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1035, 109 S.Ct. 1932, 104 L.Ed.2d 404 (1989). Thus, as a general rule, the district court may not consider the merits of the declaratory judgment action when 1) a declaratory defendant has previously filed a cause of action in state court against the declaratory plaintiff, 2) the state case involves the same issues as those involved in the federal case, and 3) the district court is prohibited from enjoining the state proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act. Jackson, 862 F.2d at 506; see also, Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 73, 91 S.Ct. 764, 768, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971). The Court has found that the issuance of a declaratory judgment in such situations would be antithetical to the noble principles of federalism and comity. See Jackson, 862 F.2d at 505.
However, we believe that the case sub judice is in a very small class of highly distinguishable cases which are exceptions to the broad rule announced in Jackson. First, unlike the normal declaratory plaintiff—and, indeed, the declaratory plaintiff in Jackson6—Travelers brought this action in federal court neither to nullify Miss Hurdles’ advantage in first bringing suit in Louisiana State Court nor to change forums.7 Travel-
Further, under the facts of this case, we believe that Miss Hurdle has waived any right to argue that the district court should have given priority to her state suit. Miss Hurdle filed a similar declaratory judgment suit in Louisiana district court more than two years prior to the dismissal of this federal declaratory action. However, that state action proceeded no further than the pleading stage by the time the federal district court dismissed this case. Indeed, while the state case remained stagnant, this federal case moved fairly quickly: the parties engaged in discovery for well over a year; the court dismissed Travelers’ claims against eighteen of nineteen defendants; Travelers and Miss Hurdle resolved all material fact issues, and the case proceeded to and was ripe for summary judgment.9
The Court finds significant that even though Miss Hurdle had ample opportunity to so do, at no time did she ask the district court to give precedence to her state court action. On July 6, 1990, just five months after Travelers filed suit, the district court ordered “those defendants who have contested jurisdiction and venue, or who believe that this court should transfer this matter to another district, abstain or should stay this action, [to] file their motions raising these issues” by August 3, 1990. (emphasis supplied). The other four defendants who had brought suit against Travelers in state forums10 responded to the court‘s order and filed motions urging the district court to defer to the state courts. Ashley Hurdle, though aware of the court‘s order and the parties’ motions,11 filed no such motion.
Moreover, when the district court asked the parties to provide briefs on the absten-
Hence, because Travelers’ primary goal in bringing this declaratory judgment action in federal court was to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits in different forums and because Ashley Hurdle, in our view, waived any right to assert that her state action took precedence over Travelers’ federal action, this case falls outside the broad parameters of Jackson. We therefore hold that although the district court could not have enjoined Hurdle‘s state case under the Anti-Injunction Act, it was nonetheless authorized to review the merits of Travelers’ declaratory judgment claim.
B. Dismiss or Declare?
The Court must now turn to the question of whether the district court abused its discretion by abstaining from deciding the merits of this case. It is now well-settled in the Fifth Circuit that a district court has discretion over whether to decide or dismiss a declaratory judgment action.12 Granite State Ins. Co. v. Tandy Corp., 986 F.2d 94 (5th Cir.1992), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ---, 113 S.Ct. 1836, 123 L.Ed.2d 463 (1993); Torch, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 947 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.1991). However, though the district court‘s discretion is broad, it is not unfettered. Courts may not dismiss requests “for declaratory judgment relief ‘on the basis of whim or personal disinclination.‘” Rowan Cos., Inc. v. Griffin, 876 F.2d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Hollis v. Itawamba County Loans, 657 F.2d 746, 750 (5th Cir.1981)). Further, unless the district court addresses and balances the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act and the factors relevant to the abstention doctrine on the record, it abuses its discretion. Id. at 30 (quoting In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147, 1166 (5th Cir.1987), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032, 109 S.Ct. 1928, 104 L.Ed.2d 400 (1989)).
The relevant factors which the district court must consider include, but are not limited to, 1) whether there is a pending state action in which all of the matters in controversy may be fully litigated, Rowan Co., Inc., 876 F.2d at 29, 2) whether the plaintiff filed suit in anticipation of a lawsuit filed by the defendant, Mission Ins. Co. v. Puritan Fashions Corp., 706 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir.1983), 3) whether the plaintiff engaged in forum shopping in bringing the suit, Rowan Cos., Inc., 876 F.2d at 29, 4) whether possible inequities in allowing the declaratory plaintiff to gain precedence in time or to change forums exist, id., 5) whether the federal court is a convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, Mission Ins. Co. v. Puritan Fashions Corp., 706 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir.1983), and 6) whether retaining the lawsuit in federal court would serve the purposes of judicial economy, see Mission Ins. Co., 706 F.2d at 602.
We note immediately that the district court summarily dismissed this case without providing even a cursory analysis of the pertinent facts and law.13 Based upon the clear
While this Court is under no obligation to review the facts of this case in light of the relevant factors, we believe that doing so would be judicious. So reviewing this case, this Court finds that the district court should have reached the merits. First, there is no doubt that Ashley Hurdle filed suit in the 18th Judicial District Court two months prior to Travelers’ bringing suit in the federal court. However, Miss Hurdle does not deny that her state case proceeded no further than the filing of the original pleadings. Thus, though the state court has precedence in time,15 that court is far behind the federal court in resolving the issues at hand.16
The second and third factors do not support abstention, for Travelers did not bring this suit to race to res judicata, nor did it shop for a new forum or seek to thwart any advantage Miss Hurdle may have gained by filing suit first in state court. On the contrary, Travelers’ goal—consistent with the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act—was to avoid multiple lawsuits in numerous different forums. With respect to the fourth factor, Miss Hurdle has not pointed to any inequities which could possibly flow from the district court‘s reaching the merits of this case. Additionally, Miss Hurdle concedes that trying the case in the federal district court in Baton Rouge is no less convenient than trying the case in the 18th Judicial District Court in Iberville Parish.
The judicial economy factor, the last factor, overwhelmingly supports retention of the case. As explained in part II-A of this opinion, the parties here have completed discovery and have resolved all material fact issues. All that remains in this case is the resolution of one, solitary, legal question on which the district court has already been thoroughly briefed. The district court simply needs to make a decision. However, as has been noted repeatedly, if this case were dismissed, the state court, duplicating the work already done in the federal court, would have to “start from scratch.” Its resolution of this case would necessarily be significantly delayed.
Addressing the facts of this case in light of the applicable law makes it readily apparent that abstention was inappropriate here. The district court abused its discretion in declining to review the merits of this case.
III. Conclusion
The district court failed to apply existing Fifth Circuit law in any significant way to the facts of the case sub judice. Had the court properly analyzed the facts and the law, it would have recognized that abstention was completely inappropriate here. Because the district court improperly dismissed this case, we must REVERSE AND REMAND for that court to adjudicate the merits of the case.
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I concur in Judge Johnson‘s careful opinion, and write separately only to emphasize
Notes
No group, family group, or blanket health insurer shall unilaterally cancel a policy after the insurer has received any covered claim or notice of any covered claim for a terminal, incapacitating, or debilitating condition. The insurer may cancel the policy, as otherwise provided by law, after the claimant‘s terminal, incapacitating, or debilitating condition has concluded and no further claims for that condition are expected, provided there has been no other covered claim, or notice of claim, made by any member of the group for a terminal, incapacitating, or debilitating condition.
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
The economic waste involved in duplicating litigation is obvious. Equally important is its adverse effect upon the prompt and efficient administration of justice. In view of the constant increase in judicial business in the federal courts and the continual necessity of adding to the number of judges, at the expense of the taxpayers, public policy requires us to seek actively to avoid the waste of judicial time and energy. Courts already heavily burdened with litigation with which they must of necessity deal should therefore not be called upon to duplicate each other‘s work in cases involving the same issues and the same parties.
Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925, 930 (3d Cir.1941), cert. denied, 315 U.S. 813, 62 S.Ct. 798, 86 L.Ed. 1211 (1942).This suit was filed in this Court seeking a declaratory judgment. There is a similar suit pending in the 18th Judicial District Court, which was filed by the plaintiff. For reasons set forth in Torch, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 947 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.1991) and Palmer v. Boucvalt, CA No. 90-774 [789 F.Supp. 211] (M.D.La. April 1992), this suit is dismissed without prejudice. The state courts are well equipped to handle the litigation between the parties. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.