Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00442/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00442-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE NAMES PROJECT FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MONITOR LIABILITY MANAGERS INC.,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00442 CRB

ORDER

The Names Project Foundation (“Plaintiff”) originally filed this action in San

Francisco County Superior Court against Monitor Liability Managers and Carolina Casualty

Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff asserted two claims: one for

breach of contract, and another for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In

support of these claims, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly refused to defend

against claims asserted against Plaintiff by a third party in another lawsuit. Carolina

Casualty Insurance Company (“Carolina Casualty”) filed a cross-complaint seeking a

declaratory judgment that it owed Plaintiff no duty to defend due to alleged

misrepresentations made by Plaintiff. Defendants then removed the case to federal court. 

Now pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Carolina Casualty’s crosscomplaint.

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00442-CRB Document 11 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\0442\Order 1.wpd 2

Here, Plaintiff has filed an independent claim for monetary damages, over which the

parties all agree that this Court has jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. For this

reason, under Ninth Circuit law, it would be an abuse of discretion for this Court to refuse to

exercise its “virtually unflagging” obligation to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant’s

counterclaim, which involves precisely the same questions of fact and law. Snodgrass v.

Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163, 1167-68 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam)

(en banc) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800,

817 (1976)); see also United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1112-14

(9th Cir. 2001). To the extent that the Court actually enjoys discretion to refuse jurisdiction

under the Declaratory Judgment Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), it declines to exercise that

discretion here.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Carolina Casualty’s cross-complaint for

declaratory relief is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00442-CRB Document 11 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 2