Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08065/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AMCO Insurance Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Western Drug, Inc., D/B/A Western

United Drug; United States of America, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-8065-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Plaintiff AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”) brought this action seeking a

declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant Western Drug, Inc.

(“Western Drug”) against a civil action threatened by the United States. The United

States and Western Drug have now submitted separate motions to dismiss. (Doc. ## 16,

18.) 

I. Background

On May 14, 2007, the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona (“U.S.

Attorney”) sent Western Drug a letter threatening civil action under several sections of

the United States Code. The U.S. Attorney alleged that Western Drug had violated

federal laws respecting the filling of prescriptions and invited the pharmacy to provide

him with any pertinent information and to “discuss a possible resolution” by June 1, 2007. 

Absent a response from Western Drug, the U.S. Attorney stated that he would “proceed

Case 3:08-cv-08065-NVW Document 32 Filed 09/24/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

accordingly.” On June 12, 2007, Western Drug sent AMCO a copy of the letter and

requested that it accept the defense of the case, noting that it would be “willing to meet

with [the U.S. Attorney] to discuss our options.” On October 24, 2007, AMCO agreed to

defend Western Drug under a complete reservation of rights, and on May 23, 2008 filed

this suit for a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

The U.S. Attorney has not filed suit against Western Drug to date. On August 29,

2008, the U.S. Attorney sent Western Drug a letter stating that the United States Drug

Enforcement Agency “is not interested in entering into a Morris agreement with Western

Drug.” (Doc. # 29.) Western Drug then withdrew its request for a defense from AMCO

on September 2, 2008. (Id.)

II. Sovereign Immunity

The United States moves to dismiss itself as a party to this action under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(1) based on sovereign immunity. “The party who sues the United States

bears the burden of pointing to . . . an unequivocal waiver of immunity.” Prescott v.

United States, 973 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d

1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983)). AMCO has not pointed to any waiver of sovereign

immunity that would apply in this case. The cases it relies upon do not discuss the United

States’ sovereign immunity, and it cannot be seriously contended that the Declaratory

Judgment Act itself effectuates a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Progressive

Consumers Fed. Credit Union v. United States, 79 F.3d 1228, 1230 (1st Cir. 1996). The

United States will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court need not

speculate about what effect, if any, its judgment in this action might have on the United

States’ ability to argue issues of policy coverage in the future. 

III. Declaratory Judgment is Unwarranted at This Time

 Western Drug moves to dismiss AMCO’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Declaratory Judgment Act states, “In a case of actual

controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the

rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” 28

Case 3:08-cv-08065-NVW Document 32 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

U.S.C. § 2201(a). Where a plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment, a court must first

determine “whether there is an actual case or controversy within its jurisdiction,” and then

decide whether to exercise its discretion to issue the judgment. Principal Life Ins. Co. v.

Robinson, 394 F.3d 665, 669 (9th Cir. 1996).

A case is ripe for review if “there is a substantial controversy, between parties

having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance

of a declaratory judgment.” Id. (citing Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312

U.S. 270, 273 (1941)). “[A] dispute between an insurer and its insureds over the duties

imposed by an insurance contract satisfies Article III’s case and controversy

requirement.” Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1223 n.2 (9th

Cir. 1998) (en banc). However, a dispute between the insurer and its insured may not be

sufficiently immediate if, after the insured’s request for a defense, the third party refrains

from filing a lawsuit for a substantial period. 

“The majority of jurisdictions to have addressed the issue . . . conclude that a third

party’s failure to file an underlying lawsuit is not a per se barrier to the maintenance of a

declaratory judgment action by an insurer against its insured.” Firemen’s Ins. Co. v.

Kline & Son Cement Repair, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 779, 786 (E.D. Va. 2007). A

substantial controversy may still exist where an injured party has asserted a claim against

the insured, the insured has requested to be defended by the insurer, and the filing of a

suit appears imminent or settlement negotiations are ongoing. See id. (collecting cases);

Great Divide Ins. Co. v. Aoao Maluna Kai Estates, 492 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1225 (D. Haw.

2007) (same). However, because the insurer’s duty to defend initially depends on the

allegations in a complaint, the case may not be ripe for review if the facts of the claim

against the insured are not sufficiently clear and may change by the time suit is filed. 

Union Ins. Co. v. Soleil Group, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 2d 567, 574 & n.2 (D. S.C. 2006)

(citing Patrons Oxford Mutual Insurance Co. v. Garcia, 1998 Me. 38, 707 A.2d 384 (Me.

1998)). 

Case 3:08-cv-08065-NVW Document 32 Filed 09/24/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

This case does not meet the minimum criteria for an Article III case or controversy

because the filing of a suit appears unlikely and settlement negotiations are not ongoing. 

The U.S. Attorney has not filed suit against Western Drug, even though more than one

year has passed since it sent the warning letter. The U.S. Attorney has also disavowed

any intention to enter into a settlement with Western Drug and Western Drug has

withdrawn its request for a defense. The underlying suit against Western Drug is

speculative and the allegations against Western Drug are not at all clear. Given the U.S.

Attorney’s considerable delay in filing suit, it cannot be assumed that any complaint it

ultimately may file will reflect the facts asserted in its warning letter. There can be no

harm to AMCO in refusing to adjudicate this action now as AMCO presently has no duty

to defend Western Drug. This action is not ripe for consideration. 

District courts also enjoy discretion in deciding whether to grant a declaratory

judgment. The primary factors for considering whether to exercise that discretion are set

out in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491 (1942). Principal Life Ins. Co., 394 F.3d

at 672. Those factors are non-exclusive and include, “[1)] the district court should avoid

needless determination of state law issues; [2)] it should discourage litigants from filing

declaratory actions as a means of forum shopping; and [3)] it should avoid duplicative

litigation.” Id. The court may also consider

whether the declaratory action will settle all aspects of the controversy;

whether the declaratory action will serve a useful purpose in clarifying the

legal relations at issue; whether the declaratory action is being sought merely

for the purposes of procedural fencing or to obtain a ‘res judicata’ advantage;

or whether the use of a declaratory action will result in entanglement between

the federal and state court systems. In addition, the district court might also

consider the convenience of the parties, and the availability and relative

convenience of other remedies.

Id. 

Even if this action meets the minimum criteria of an Article III case or

controversy, the court declines to adjudicate it at this time. AMCO’s declaratory

judgment action involves issues of Arizona insurance law that need not be determined if,

as appears likely, the U.S. Attorney refrains from filing suit. Even were the court to rule

Case 3:08-cv-08065-NVW Document 32 Filed 09/24/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

in this action, AMCO might be forced to file another declaratory judgment action if the

nature of the suit against Western Drug changes. This action may not settle all aspects of

the controversy, may not serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relations at issue,

and may not avoid duplicative litigation. AMCO can file another declaratory judgment

action if Western Drug again requests a defense. The facts are likely to be clearer, the

parties more interested and less inconvenienced, and the issues more carefully defined if

and when Western Drug makes such a request. In the mean time, AMCO has no duty to

defend Western Drug and can suffer no liability.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States Motion to Dismiss (doc. #

16) and Defendant Western Drug, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 18) are granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing this action

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as against the United States of American and for

lack of equitable basis for declaratory judgment and for lack of case or controversy as

against Western Drug, Inc. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

 Dated: September 23, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08065-NVW Document 32 Filed 09/24/08 Page 5 of 5