FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCT 10, 2008

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 0 8- 11 58 8

Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D. C. Dock et No. 0 7- 61 25 9- CV-KAM

GREAT LAKE S REINSURANCE (UK) PLC

,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

TLU LIMITED, GARY KIRKLAND,

Defen da nt s- App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
(Oc to ber 1 0, 2 00 8)

Befo re ANDERSON, HULL an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

Great Lak es Rei ns ur an ce (UK) PLC ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t c o ur t’s or de r

gr an ti ng th e m ot io n of TLU Lim it ed an d Gary Kirk la nd (co ll ect i v e l y, th e“ In su red s” ) to st ay an d ad m in is tra ti ve ly cl os e t h i s c a se , pe nd in g a st at e co ur t

act io n i n v ol vi ng th e sa m e is su es

. In th is cas e, Great Lak es se ek s to de cl are vo id 1

a n in su ran ce po li cy it ha d is su ed to th e In su red s. On ap pe al

, Great Lak es a r g u e s

th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n i n s t a yi n g th e fed eral co ur t cas e by: (1 )

fai li ng to ap pl y , or pr op erl y ap pl y , th e te st es ta bl is h e d b y t h i s Co ur t to de te rm in e

whe th er to st ay a de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n; an d (2 ) ot he rwi s e c o m m it ti ng a

cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t i n re so lv in g t he m ot io n. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew, we affi rm

.

W e rev ie w a fed eral di st ric t co ur t’s st ay of a de cl arat or y

jud gm en t ac ti on fo r

ab us e of di sc ret io n. W il to n v. Sev en Fal ls Co

., 51 5 U.S. 27 7, 28 9- 90 ( 1 9 95 ).

Und e r t h i s s ta nd ard

, we wil l le av e un di st ur be d a di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng un le ss we

fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha s m ad e a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t, o r ha s ap pl ie d th e

wro ng le ga l st an da rd

. Am eri ta s Vari ab le Life In s. Co

. v. R o a c h

, 4 1 1 F.3 d 13 28

,

13 32 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). Dis tri ct co ur ts ha ve “ su bs ta nt ia l la ti tu de in de ci d in g

w h e t he r to st ay or di sm is s a de cl arat or y jud gm en t su it in li gh t of pe nd i n g s t a t e

pr oc eed in gs .” W il to n, 51 5 U.S. at 28 6. W e, as th e rev i e w i n g c ou rt, “ m us t be

m in df ul th at th e di st ric t co ur ts are cl os er to th e fact s an d th e pa rti es , an d th at no t

Be cause the district court’s or der w ould be re solving the same issues as the state court, 1

the orde r stay ing the case eff ectively terminated the case , and is there fore final and a ppeala ble.
See Moses H. Cone Me m’l Hosp. v. Merc ury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 8-13 (1983).

2ev erythi ng th at is im po rta nt ab ou t a la wsu it co m es th ro ug h on th e pr in te d pa ge .”

Am eri ta s, 4 11 F.3d at 1 33 2 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

In de ed

, th e D e c l arat or y Ju dg m en t Act (“ DJA”) is “ an en ab li ng Act, whi ch

co nf ers a di sc ret io n on co ur ts rat he r th an an ab so lu t e r i g ht up on th e li ti ga nt .”

W il to n, 5 15 U.S. at 2 87 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . It s ay s:

In a cas e of act ua l co nt ro ve rs y wit hi n it s juri sd ic ti on , . . . an y co ur t of
th e Uni te d St at e s, up on th e fil in g of an ap pr op ria te pl ead in g, m ay de cl are th e rig ht s an d ot he r le ga l rel at io ns of an y in te re s t e d p art y

se ek in g s uc h d ecl arat io n[ .]

28 U.S.C. § 22 01 (a) (em ph as is ad de d)

. As it s us e of t h e pe rm is si ve “ m ay ”

in di cat es , th e DJA “ on ly gi ve s fed eral co ur ts co m pe te nc e to m ak e a de cl arat io n of

rig ht s; it do es no t im

po s e a d u ty to do so .” Am eri ta s, 41 1 F.3 d at 13 30 ; se e al so

Wi l t o n , 5 1 5 U.S. at 28 6 (“ Si nc e it s in cep ti on , th e Decl arat or y Ju dg m en t Act ha s

be en un de rs to od to co nf er on fed eral co ur ts un iq ue an d su bs ta n t i al di sc ret io n in

de ci di ng whe th er to de cl are th e rig ht s of li ti ga nt s.”) (em ph a s i s ad de d) ; Bri ll ha rt v.

Exc es s In s. Co

. of Am er., 31 6 U.S. 49 1, 49 4 (1 94 2 ) ( “Alt ho ug h th e Dis tri ct Co ur t

ha d juri sd ic ti on of th e su it un de r t h e F e d e ral Decl arat or y Ju dg m en ts Act

. . ., it

was un de r no co m

pu ls io n t o e xe rci se th at juri sd ic ti on .”).

3Rel y in g on th e s e pr in ci pl es , th is Co ur t ha s ou tl in ed ni ne fact or s th at a

di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er i n d e t e rm in in g whe th er to acce pt or de cl in e

juri sd ic ti on un de r th e DJA wh en a rel at ed st at e act io n i s p en di ng :

(1 ) th e st ren gt h of th e st at e’s i n t eres t in ha vi ng th e is su es rai se d in th e fed eral de cl arat or y

act io n d eci de d i n t he st at e co ur ts ;

(2 ) whe th er th e jud gm en t in t h e fed eral de cl arat or y act io n wou ld

se tt le th e co nt ro ve rs y ;

(3 ) whe th er th e fed eral de cl arat or y act io n w o u ld se rv e a us efu l

pu rp os e in cla rif

y in g t he leg al rel at io ns at i ss ue ;

(4 ) whe th er t h e de cl arat or y rem ed y is be in g us ed m erel y fo r th e
pu rp os e o f “p r o c ed ur al fen ci ng ”
-- th at is

, to pr ov id e an aren a fo r a

race fo r res jud ic at a or to ach ie v e a fed eral he ari ng in a cas e
ot he rwis e n ot rem ov ab le ;

(5 ) whe th er th e us e o f a d ecl arat or y act io n wou ld in crea se th e fri ct io n be t w e e n ou r fed eral an d st at e co ur ts an d im pr op erl y en cro ach on st at e juri sd ic ti on ;

(6 ) whe th er th ere is an a l t ern at iv e rem ed y th at is be tt er or m or e effe ct iv e;

(7 ) whe th er th e un de rlyin g fact ua l is su es are im po rta nt to an in fo rm ed

res ol ut io n o f th e cas e;

(8 ) whe th er th e st at e tri al co ur t is in a be tt er po si ti on to ev al ua te th os e fact ua l i ss ue s t ha n i s t he fed eral co ur t; an d

(9 ) whe th er th ere is a cl os e ne xu s be twee n th e un de rlyin g f a c t u al an d
le ga l is su es an d st at e la w an d/ or pu b l i c po li cy , or whe th er fed eral

co m m o n o r st at ut or y la w di ct at es a res ol ut io n of th e de cl arat or y jud gm en t ac ti on

.

4Am eri ta s, 41 1 F.3 d at 13 30 -3 1. We a l s o , aft er se tt in g fo rth th es e fact or s, ha ve

up he ld a di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to as se rt juri sd ic ti o n w h ere th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

co ns id ered on ly two of th e fact o r s : ( 1 ) th at th e st at e co ur t act io n en co m pa ss ed th e

en ti re co nt ro ve rs y , an d th e fed eral act io n in vo lv ed on ly so m e of th e pa rti es an d

s o me o f th e cl ai m s; an d (2 ) th at th e fed eral act io n wou ld im pr op erl y in te rfer e wit h

th e st at e act i o n

. Id

. at 13 31

. W e ex pl ai ne d th at “ [o ]ur li st is ne it he r ab so lu te no r

is an y on e fact or co nt ro ll in g; th es e are m erel y gu id ep os ts in fu rth eran ce of th e

Su pr em e Co ur t’s ad m on it io ns in Bri ll ha rt a nd W il to n.” Id.

In li gh t of th is cas e la w, Great Lak e s h a s no t pe rs ua de d us th at th e di st ric t

co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de cl i n i n g ju ris di ct io n he re. As an in it ia l m at te r, we

reco gn iz e th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ex pr es sl y ci te to th e Am eri ta s cas e, or it s

ni ne -fac to r te st

. Yet a rev ie w of th e reco rd rev eal s th at Great Lak es it s e l f d i d n o t

ci te th e cas e, or it s te st

, to th e di st ric t co ur t. Cf. St ewar t v

. D e p ’t of Heal th &

Hum an Serv s., 26 F.3 d 11 5, 11 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ th is co ur t wil l no t ad d r e ss an

arg um en t th at ha s no t be en rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t” ). Nev ert he le ss , t h e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ci si on di d ad dr es s pr on gs of th e Am eri t a s t e s t, in cl ud in g whe th er th e

fed eral cas e wou ld se rv e a “ us efu l pu rp os e,” whe th e r th ere was a be tt er al te rn at iv e

rem ed y , an d whe th er fact ua l is su es were im po rta nt to th e res ol ut i o n o f th e fed eral

cas e. To th e ex te nt th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er al l of th e fact or s, or

5co ns id ered ot he r fact or s, we ha ve al read y he ld th at th e li st of fact or s is no t

ex cl us iv e, an d t ha t n o “ on e fac to r is co nt ro ll in g.” Am eri ta s, 4 11 F.3d at 1 33 1.

Mo reo ve r , we si m

pl y reject Great Lak es ’s as se rti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t

fai le d to gi ve su ffi ci en t w e i g h t to th e fact th at “ un iq ue ly fed eral ” is su es of

ad m ira lt y la w are cen tra l to it s fed eral cas e. As th e d i s t r i c t co ur t no te d, Fl or id a

co ur ts are reg ul arl y req ui re d t o a pp ly pr in ci pl es of fed eral m ari ti m e la w, se e

Carn iv al Co rp . v . C arl is le , 9 53 So .2d 46 1, 46 4 (F l a

. 20 07 ) (“ Bo th fed eral an d st at e

co ur ts m us t ap pl y fed eral m ari ti m e la w

. . . .”)
-- an ob se rv at io n t h a t i s w e l l

su pp or te d by cas e an d st at ut or y la w. Si nc e th e or ig in al J ud ic ia ry Act of 17 89 an d

en sh rin ed in th e st at ut e th at

, to da y , co nf ers juri sd ic ti on on di st ric t co ur ts to he ar

m ari ti m e di sp ut es in th e fir st i n s t a n c e , t he la w ha s co di fie d th e co m m on la w rig ht

to se ek a jury tri al in st at e co ur t on ad m ira lt y is su es in th e “ sa vi ng to su it or s”

cl au se

. S e e 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 33 (1 ) (“ The di st ric t co ur ts sh al l ha ve or ig in al

juri sd ic ti on , ex cl us iv e of th e co ur ts of th e St at es , of

. . . an y ci vi l cas e of ad m ira lt y

or m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on , sa vi ng to su it or s in al l cas es al l ot he r rem ed ie s to whi ch

th ey are ot he rwis e en ti tl ed .”) (em ph as is ad de d)

. As th e Su p r e me C o u r t ha s he ld

,

“ th e sa vi ng to su it or s cl au se pr es erv es rem ed ie s a n d t he co nc ur ren t juri sd ic ti on of

st at e co ur ts ov er so m e ad m ira lt y an d m ar i t i me c l a i ms.” Lewis v. Lewis & Cl ark

Mar in e, In c., 53 1 U.S. 43 8, 44 5 (2 00 1) ; se e al so id

. at 45 5 (“ [T]o de fin e ad m ira lt y

6ju r i s d i c t i o n a s f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n w o u l d b e a d e s t r u c t i v e

ov ers im pl ifi cat io n of th e hi gh ly in tri cat e in te rp la y of th e St at es an d th e Nati on al

Gov ern m en t in th ei r reg ul at io n of m ari ti m e co m m erce .”) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

.

Bu t in an y ev en t, ev en if a d mi r a l ty la w were a “ un iq ue ly fed eral ” qu es ti on , we

ha ve up he ld a di st r i c t c o u r t ’s de ci si on to st ay a cas e whe re th e fed eral cas e

in vo lv ed jus t s uc h a qu es ti on -- th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of Alab am a’s W ro ng fu l Dea th

St at ut e. Old Rep ub li c Uni on In s. Co

. v

. Ti l l i s Truc ki ng Co

., 12 4 F.3 d 12 58 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 97 ). Thu s, th at Great La k e s ’s f e d eral cas e in vo lv es ad m ira lt y la w do es no t

co nt ro l t he di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on whet he r to st ay th e cas e.

W e l i k ewis e fin d no m eri t to Great Lak es ’s co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t

im pr op erl y co ns id ered Great Lak es ’s fai lu re to o p p o s e th e In su red s’ m ot io n to

rem an d t h e s t a t e co ur t cas e. In de ed , t ha t Great Lak es di d no t op po se th e m ot io n is

te ll in g, s in ce it su gg es ts th at Great Lak es is at te m pt in g to ob ta in a fed eral he ari ng

in a cas e th at is ot he rwis e no t rem ov ab le

. See Lewis

, 5 3 1 U

. S

. at 45 5 (“ W e ha ve

pr ev io us ly ref

us ed to ho ld th at ad m ira lt y cl ai m s

. . . f al l wit hi n t he sco pe of f

ed eral

qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on ou t of co nc ern th at sa vi ng to su it or s act io ns in st at e co ur t

wou ld b e rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t an d un de rm in e th e cl ai m an t’s ch oi ce of

fo ru m .”). Great Lak es ’s co nd uc t th eref or e g o e s d i r e c tl y to on e of th e Am eri ta s

7fact or s -- th e ex is te nc e of “ pr oc ed ur al fen ci ng ”
-- a n d was no t im pr op erl y

co ns id ered by the di st ric t co ur t.

Fi na ll y , o t h e r Am eri ta s fact or s fu rth er su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an ti ng

of th e st ay

. As th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz e d

, t he re is no in di cat io n th at th e fed eral

c a s e w o ul d se rv e a “ us efu l pu rp os e,” an d it is cl ear th at fact ua l is su es , in cl ud in g

whe th er t he Ins ur ed s m ad e m at eri al om is si on s i n th ei r ap pl ic at io n, an d wh et he r th e

type of da m ag e th e In su red s’ v e s s e l su st ai ne d wou ld be co ve red by th e po li cy ,

wou ld be im

po rta nt to th e res ol ut io n of th e fed eral cas e. In ad di ti o n , b e cau se a

jury tri al wou ld no t be av ai la bl e in fed eral co ur t -- whe r e “ [m ari ti m e cl ai m s are]

ex erci se d acco rd i n g t o th e hi st or ic pr oc ed ur e in ad m ira lt y , by a jud ge wit ho ut a

jury,” Ro m ero v. In t’l Term in al Op e r a t i n g Co

., 35 8 U.S. 35 4, 36 3 (1 95 9)

,

su pe rs ed ed by st a t u t e o n o t he r gr ou nd s, 45 U.S.C. § 59
-- th e st at e co ur t

pr oc eed in g act ua ll y m ay pr ov id e an al te rn at iv e rem ed y th at is mo r e e f f ect iv e th an

th e fed eral act io n, si nc e it al lo ws fo r a jury tri al o n t he m an y fact -in te ns iv e

qu es ti on s t ha t ar e cen tra l t o t hi s ca se

.

Und er th e br oa d di s c r e t i o n ou tl in ed in Am eri ta s, as well as th e fact s an d

ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, we can no t s a y th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha s m ad e a cl ear

erro r of jud gm en t, or ha s ap pl ie d th e wro ng le ga l st an da rd

. Am e r i t a s , 41 1 F.3 d at

813 32

. W e th eref or e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s o r d e r st ay in g th e cas e, pe nd in g

res ol ut io n o f th e st at e co ur t ac ti on

.

AFFIRMED.

9