[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 22

- 11380

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

REBECCA L. HEIKKA,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:21

- cv

- 61885

- AHS

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11380 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 1 of 62 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11380

Before W ILSON , L UCK , and B LACK , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:After Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (Safeco) removed Rebecca Heikka ’ s complaint to federal court, it moved to dismiss the lawsuit as duplicative of another action pending in state court. The district court granted the mo tion and dismissed the removed action with prejudice. Heikka appeals from th e dismissal
, and after careful review, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Heikka and the district court have described the history of these cases a s “ long and sordid

. ” It began with a 2007 drunk driving accident in which Safeco ’ s insured hit Heikka. Since then, Heikka
, Safeco , and Safeco ’ s insured have been litigating this dispute

— mostly in state court. W e begin with an overview of the four stages in the litigation relevant to this ap peal: (1) Heikka ’ s 2007 Original Action, (2) Safeco ’ s 2009 Declaratory Judgment Action, (3) Heikka ’ s 2019 Bad Faith Action, and (4) Heikka ’ s 2021 Bad Faith
Action

. 1

1 Heikka has twice moved to supplement the record on appeal. Her first motion to supplement the record was granted, and she filed an amended appellate brief in August 2022. Safeco then filed its response brief. When Heikka filed her reply brief, however, she also moved to further supplement the record with a motion in limine filed by Safeco in May 2022. Safeco opposes further supplementation and asks us to strike the parts of Heikka’s reply brief rel ying on the motio n in limine. Heikka did not present the motion in limine with her first motion to supplement nor did she raise the issue in her initial brief. USCA11 Case: 22-11380 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 2 of 622

- 11380 Opinion of the Court 3
Shortly after the accident i n early 2007, Safeco tender ed a check for the insurance policy ’ s liability limit with a proposed release of claims

. T he parties , however, disagreed about whether they ever reached a settlement on the release

. A few months later, Heikka fil ed the 2007 Original Action in state court against Safeco ’ s insured, alleging one count of negligence. Safeco was not named

as a defendant in the Original Actio n, but it provided legal representation and moved to enforce the settlement as well as for summary judgment for its insured

. Following an evident iary hearing,

t he state trial court denied th ose motion s in 2008, and proceedings continued in the 2007 Original Action

. A year later, Safeco and its insured filed the 2009 Declaratory Judgment Action as a separate complaint to enforce the purported settlement before a different state trial judge

. In 2012, after findingthere was no enforceable settlement, the state court entered judgment in favor of Heikka as to the Declaratory Judgment Action. In 2016, a third state trial judge awarded attorneys ’ fees to Heikka
, finding the Declaratory Judgment Action was not made in

See Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 1225 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining we rarely supplement the record to include material that was not before the district court); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining we generally refuse to consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief). We see no reaso n to depart from our general rules

. Heikka’s second motion to supplement is DENIED , and Safeco’s motion to strike is GRANTED to the extent we will not consider the arguments related to the motion in limine. USCA11 Case: 22-11380 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 3 of 64 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11380
good faith because “ Safeco should not get ‘ a second bite at the apple ’” after the motion to enforce the declaratory judgment in the 2007 Original Complaint had been denied. Following a jury verdict against Safeco ’ s insured in 2019, the state court entered judgment in favor of Heikka for over $1 million
in t he 2007 Original Action. The court reserved jurisdiction to allow Heikka to amend her pleadings to allege bad faith claims. Heikka filed an amended complaint in the 2007 Original Action to add a statutory bad faith claim and a common law bad faith claim against Safeco. We will refer to the se new ly alleged bad faith claims as the 2019 Bad Faith Action. With respect to the common law claim, Heikka alleged Safeco failed to settle her claim against the insured, made misrepresentations to the court in an att empt todefeat the settlement agreement, and engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. Two years later, Heikka filed the 2021 Bad Faith Action as a

new complaint against only Safeco

. The 2021 Bad Faith Action alleged a single clai m of common law bad faith and included many of the same allegations as the common law bad faith claim in the
20 19 Bad Faith Action. The main difference is found in subparagraphs I

- N , adding allegations specifically identifying the 2009 Declaratory Judgment Action, which Heikka characterized as forum shopping
, frivolous, duplicative , and filed in bad faith

. Safeco removed the 2021 Bad Faith Action to federal court and moved to dismiss it. It argued the 2019 Bad Faith Action wasstill pending in state court and that the 2021 lawsuit was duplicative. To the extent Heikka sought to add additional facts to supp ort USCA11 Case: 22-11380 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 4 of 622

- 11380 Opinion of the Court 5
her bad faith claim, Safeco asserted she should have sought leave to file another amended complaint in the 2019 Bad Faith Action. Heikka responded that the 2021 Bad Faith Action brought a bad faith claim related to the filing of the Declaratory Judgm entAction, which was a separate cause of action from the bad faith failure

- to

- settle claim. The district court agreed with Safeco and dismissed the 2021 Bad Faith Action with prejudic e as duplicative

. The court explained the proper action would have be en to amend the 2019 BadFaith Action instead of filing a new action based on the same subject matter and against the same party. II. DISCUSSION

“ Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in determining whether to stay or dismiss litigation in order to avoid duplicating a proceeding already pending in another federal court. ” I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat ’ l Bank , 793 F.2d 1541, 1551

- 52 (11th Cir. 1986).

“ In assessing the appropriateness of dismissal in the event of an exercise of concurren t jurisdiction, ” the Supreme Court has explained a federal court may consider factors such as “ the inconvenience of the federal forum, ” “ the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation, ” and “ the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the

concurrent forums. ” Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States , 424 U.S. 800, 818

- 19 (1976). L ike Florida courts
, we have also recognized the claim

- splitting doctrine “ to promote judicial economy and shield parties from vexatious and duplicative litigation while empowering the district court to manage its docket. ” Vanover v. NCO Fin. Servs. , 857 F.3d 833, 843 (11th Cir. 2017) ; see, USCA11 Case: 22-11380 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 5 of 66 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11380

e.g. , Dep ’ t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mid

- Fl a. Growers
, 570 So. 2d 892, 901 (Fla. 1990)

. Where, as in this case, the district

court ’ s dismissal is based on case management grounds, we review the dismissal for abuse of discretion. Vanover , 857 F.3d at 83 7

- 3 8

. T he common law bad faith claims in the 2019 Bad Faith Action and 2021 Bad Faith Actio n involve the same parties

— Heikka suing Safeco

— and they both arise from Safeco ’ s handling of Heikka ’ s claim against Safeco ’ s insured

. See i d. at 8 41

- 42 (setting forth a two

- factor test) ; cf. Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co. , 896 So. 2d 665, 680 (Fla. 2004) ( “ In Florida, the question of whether an insurer has acted in bad faith in handling claims against the insured is determined under the ‘ totality of the circumstances ’ standard. ” ). Given the history of these cases, t he district court did not abuse it s discretion in dismissing the 2021 Bad Faith Action to save scarce judicial resources

. For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by Heikka ’ s argument that her proposed amendment s would have

save d the 2021 Bad Faith Action from dismissal

. We affirm the district court ’ s dismissal of the 2021 Bad Faith Action and l eave any issues related to Safeco ’ s filing of the 2009 Declaratory Judgment Action for the state court

. AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 22-11380 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 6 of 6