Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02176/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02176-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

1

 Plaintiff’s opposition should have been filed on or before January 15, 2010. Defendants

object to the opposition as untimely, but the Court overrules that objection. It appears the untimely

filing was the result of a calendaring error, and Defendants received additional time to file their reply

brief. Therefore, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s opposition brief.

- 1 - 09cv2176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2176 DMS (AJB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS

RUBEN GARCIA AND REBECA

GARCIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

MOTION TO STAY

[Docket No. 32]

vs.

FRANCISCO SOTO, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on Defendants Ruben Garcia and Rebeca Garcia’s motion

to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion to stay. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on January

21, 2010,1

 and Defendants filed their reply on January 28, 2010. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court denies the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

On June 28, 2006, Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) issued an

insurance policy to Defendants Omega Transport and Francisco Soto. The Policy provided liability

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02176-DMS-AJB Document 51 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 4
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 - 09cv2176

coverage relating to certain vehicles, including a 1984 Peterbilt truck. On June 28, 2006, Defendant

Ruben Garcia was involved in an accident while driving the truck on Interstate 8. 

On June 5, 2008, Defendant Garcia and his wife, Rebeca, filed a Complaint in San Diego

Superior Court alleging claims of negligence and loss of consortium arising out of the accident. The

Complaint names Carrizo Gorge International Aggregates, Inc., Carrizo Gorge Railway, Inc.,

Francisco Soto, Connie Truc, Khiem Tran, Valente Uribe and Omega Transport as Defendants. That

case is currently pending.

On October 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed the present Complaint in this Court alleging a claim for

declaratory relief. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a determination about whether Mr. Garcia is an

“insured” under the Policy such that an exclusion would apply, thereby negating Plaintiff’s duty to

defend and/or indemnify the defendants in the state court action. This Court has entered defaults

against Defendants Carrizo Gorge International Aggregates, Inc. and Carrizo Gorge Railway, Inc.

Defendants Soto, Truc, Tran, Uribe and Omega Transport have just recently been served, and

Defendants Ruben and Rebeca Garcia filed the present motion. 

II.

DISCUSSION

The Garcia Defendants assert this Court has discretion to decide this case under the

Declaratory Judgment Act. They argue the Court should exercise that discretion, and either dismiss

or stay this case pending a decision in the related state court case of Garcia v. Carrizo Gorge Int’l

Aggregates, Inc., San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2008-00085174-cu-pa-ctl. 

“In Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Company of America, 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed.

1620 (1942), the Supreme Court held expressly that a district court should consider several factors

when determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory relief claim regarding state law

issues.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2001). Those factors include: (1) “the scope

of the pending state court proceeding and the nature of defenses open there[,]”(2) “whether the claims

of all parties in interest can satisfactorily be adjudicated in that proceeding,” (3) “whether necessary

parties have been joined,” and (4) “whether such parties are amenable to process in that proceeding[.]”

Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 495. Additional factors include: “(1) whether a refusal to entertain the request

Case 3:09-cv-02176-DMS-AJB Document 51 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 4
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 - 09cv2176

for declaratory relief avoids needless decisions of state law by the federal court; (2) whether the action

is a means of forum shopping; and (3) whether dismissal of the claim for declaratory relief would

avoid duplicative litigation.” Smith, 263 F.3d at 977 (citing Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Robsac Indus., 947

F.2d 1367, 1371 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

Starting with the first factor, the state court proceeding alleges two state law claims:

Negligence and loss of consortium. Defendants argue this case involves state law issues, namely

contract interpretation, therefore this case should be stayed pending resolution of the state court case.

That both cases involve state law issues, however, is not dispositive. Rather, the Court must consider

the scope of the claims, and here, the scope of the claims does not overlap. The nature of the legal

claims and the elements involved in each are entirely different. Therefore, this factor does not warrant

dismissal or a stay. 

Other factors also do not warrant dismissal or a stay. The claim at issue here involves a

determination of whether Mr. Garcia was an “insured” under the policy. Defendants assert this issue

will be resolved by the state court defendants’ seventh affirmative defense, which alleges Mr. Garcia

was an employee of the defendants and is therefore barred from bringing suit under the Workers

Compensation Act. However, whether Mr. Garcia was an employee under the Workers Compensation

Act is not the same as whether he was an “insured” under the policy. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim

will not be resolved in the state court proceeding, but rather, must be resolved here. The difference

in the issues raised here and in the state court proceeding also eliminates the risk of duplicative

litigation and inconsistent decisions, and refutes Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff is engaged in

forum shopping. 

III.

CONCLUSION

After considering the relevant factors identified above, the Court finds it would be

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02176-DMS-AJB Document 51 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 4
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 - 09cv2176

inappropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to

dismiss or stay is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 16, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02176-DMS-AJB Document 51 Filed 02/16/10 Page 4 of 4