Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05164/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

J.B. HUNT TRANSPORTATION, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 05-5164

STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Now on the 19th day of June, 2006, comes on for

consideration Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject

Matter Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a

Claim (doc. 4). The Court, having reviewed the pleadings of the

parties, and all other matters of relevance before it, and being

well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with

respect thereto: 

1. The plaintiff, J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc. (“J.B.

Hunt”), originally filed this action on October 4, 2005 against

the defendant, Stevens Transport, Inc. (“Stevens”). The

complaint asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists and seeks a

declaratory judgment. 

2. The facts which serve as the basis for the Amended

Complaint are described below:

* J.B. Hunt and Stevens are both engaged in the trucking

business throughout the United States. Complaint, ¶ 4. 

Case 5:05-cv-05164-JLH Document 11 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
2

* According to J.B. Hunt, Angela Horowitz, Vice President

Driver Resources of Stevens Transport, wrote several letters to

J.B. Hunt “accusing J.B. Hunt of intentional interference with

contractual relations by allegedly ‘hiring or soliciting those

drivers who are under a contract with Stevens Transport.’” The

letters further state that “Stevens Transport will take all

appropriate legal action to enforce its rights.” Complaint, ¶ 7.

* In addition, Stevens has refused to release certain

employment information to J.B. Hunt regarding drivers it contends

are under contract. Complaint, ¶ 8. 

* J.B. Hunt denies that it has improperly interfered with

the contractual relations of Stevens and its drivers. J.B. Hunt

seeks a declaratory judgment: 

(a) “that J.B. Hunt’s recruitment and employment of

drivers under contract with Stevens Transport is

not tortious interference with Stevens Transport’s

contractual relations or prospective business

advantage;” and

(b) “that even if J.B. Hunt’s recruitment and

employment of drivers under contract with Stevens

Transport did interfere with Stevens Transport’s

contractual relations or prospective business

Case 5:05-cv-05164-JLH Document 11 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
3

advantage, such interference is privileged or

justified by competition.” Complaint, ¶ 11. 

3. Stevens now moves to dismiss J.B. Hunt’s Complaint.

Specifically, Stevens alternatively argues: 

* that the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement

for diversity jurisdiction has not been met;

* that the Court should exercise its discretion to

refuse review of this declaratory judgment action; and,

* that there is no justiciable controversy. 

4. J.B. Hunt has responded to Stevens’ motion to dismiss

and argues that a “justiciable controversy exists between the

parties that is ripe for judicial determination.” J.B. Hunt

further states that it “is not seeking merely a preliminary

declaration of law, rather it is facing a real, on-going dispute

from which it is entitled to relief from this Court.” Response,

p. 6. 

5. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides as follows: “In a

case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any

court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate

pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any

interested party seeking such declaration . . . .” 28 U.S.C.

§2201. 

Case 5:05-cv-05164-JLH Document 11 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
Proceedings are parallel if “‘substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in different 1

forums.’” Scottsdale, 426 F.3d at 997 (citations omitted). Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court finds that

there are no parallel state court proceedings pending. 

4

The Supreme Court has held that a federal court has broad

discretion in determining whether to exercise jurisdiction in a

declaratory judgment. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277

(1995). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently examined

the exercise of such discretion in Scottsdale Ins. Co. V. Detco

Indust., Inc., 426 F.3d 994 (8 Cir. 2005). Specifically, in th

Scottsdale, the Court examined the discretion to exercise

jurisdiction “when no parallel proceedings are pending in state

court” and approved a “six-factor” test which should be applied

when determining whether to exercise discretion over a

declaratory judgment action. Id. The relevant factors include: 1

(a) whether the declaratory judgment sought “will serve a

useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal

relations in issue;”

(b) whether the declaratory judgment “will terminate and

afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and

controversy giving rise to the [federal] proceeding;”

(c) “the strength of the state’s interest in having the

issues raised in the federal declaratory judgment

action decided in the state courts;”

(d) “whether the issues raised in the federal action can

more efficiently be resolved in the court in which the

state action is pending;”

Case 5:05-cv-05164-JLH Document 11 Filed 06/19/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
5

(e) “whether permitting the federal action to go forward

would result in unnecessary ‘entanglement’ between the

federal and state court systems, because of the

presence of ‘overlapping issues of fact or law;’”

(f) “whether the declaratory judgment action is being used

merely as a device for procedural fencing.’”

Scottsdale, 426 F.3d at 998(citing Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. IndCom Elec. Co., 139 F.3d 419 (4 Cir. 1998). th

In addition to the six-factor test adopted by the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court notes that the federal

courts have historically resisted declaratory judgment actions in

certain circumstances – one such circumstance being actions

brought by “putative tortfeasors . . . seeking a declaration that

the injured parties cannot recover by reason of certain state-law

affirmative defenses.” Morrison v. Parker, 90 F.Supp.2d 876, 880

(W.D. Mich. 2000). See also BASF Corp. v. Symington, 50 F.3d 555

(8 Cir. 1995); Cunningham Bros. Inc. V. Bail, 407 F.2d 1165 (7 th th

Cir. 1969). 

6. In light of the information before it, the Court is not

persuaded that the declaratory judgment sought will serve a

useful purpose in clarifying and settling anything between these

parties. 

J.B. Hunt insists, in its complaint, that its actions --

past, present and future -– with respect to recruiting and hiring

Case 5:05-cv-05164-JLH Document 11 Filed 06/19/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
6

Stevens’ drivers, do not amount to tortious interference of

contract and asks the Court so to declare. It further insists

that even if its actions should be found to amount to tortious

interference of contract, those actions were privileged or

justified by competition. 

Before the Court could make the requested declarations,

there would need to be a factual inquiry since the alleged

actions of J.B. Hunt would need to be evaluated with respect to

each and every driver allegedly affected. Further, until the

facts are evaluated, it would be impossible to predict the

substantive law relevant to J.B. Hunt’s actions in each specific

incident. Accordingly, applying the required factors, the Court

concludes that the issues presented by the J.B. Hunt’s complaint

are not appropriate for issuance of a declaratory judgment and

will exercise its discretion by declining to do so.

It follows that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to

State a Claim (doc. 4) should be, and it hereby is, granted. See

Scottsdale Ins. Co. V. Detco Indust., Inc., 426 F.3d 994 (8th

Cir. 2005); BASF Corp. v. Symington, 50 F.3d 555 (8 Cir. 1995). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05164-JLH Document 11 Filed 06/19/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>