1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2201. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 97-60686

_______________________

AGORA SYNDICATE, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBINSON JANITORIAL SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED, Et Al,

Defendants,

ROBINSON JANITORIAL SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED;

TROY DODSON, Sole Wrongful Death Beneficiary

of Christy E. Massie, Deceased, ESTATE OF MASSIE,

and the Estate of Christy E. Massie, Deceased,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

_________________________________________________________________

July 31, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

The district court dismissed, sua sponte

, this insurance

company’s declaratory judgment suit 1 in deference to the underlying

liability case, pending in state court, in which the insurance2

company was not a party. While it is true that “[i]n the

declaratory judgment conte xt, the normal principle that federal

courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to

considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration,”

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.

, 515 U.S. 277, 288, 115 S. Ct. 2137, 2143

(1995), no such efficiency concerns existed in this case. Under

these unusual circumstances, we hold that the district court abused

its discretion in declining jur isdiction. The judgment of

dismissal is therefore reversed, and the case remanded.

The facts are not in dispute. In 1992, James McClure

abducted Christy Massie from her law office. Robinson Janitorial

employed McClure as a janitor and had assigned him to clean

Massie’s office building. McClure trapped Massie in the trunk of

her car, and she died. In 1995, Troy Dodson and the Estate of

Christy Massie filed a wrongful death action in Mississippi state

court against Robinson Janitorial, predicating the company’s

liability on respondeat superior and negligent hiring/supervision.

In 1996, Agora, Robin son Janitorial’s insurer, filed suit in

federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that McClure’s actions

were not covered under Robinson Janitorial’s policy and that Agora

had no duty to defend the company in the state wrongful death

action. Both Agora and Robinson moved for summary judgment on the

merits, but the district court decided, sua sponte

, to abstain from3

ruling on the declaratory judgment and dismissed the suit. Agora

timely appealed.

This court reviews t he dismissal of a declaratory

judgment action for an abuse of d iscretion. W ilton

, 515 U.S. at

289-90, 115 S. Ct. at 2144; Rowan Cos. v. Griffin

, 876 F.2d 26, 28-

29 (5th Cir. 1989).

“Since its inception, the Declaratory Judgment Act has

been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial

discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants.”

Wilton

, 515 U .S. at 286, 115 S. Ct. at 2142. In W ilton

, the

Supreme Court held that this discretion remained unaltered by the

subsequent development of abstention doctrine case law, under which

a district court’s decision to abstain from entertaining a case

must satisfy the “exceptional circumst ances” test. 515 U.S. at

281-82, 115 S. Ct. at 2140. W ilton discussed in the following

terms federal district courts’ discretion to abst ain from

entertaining a declaratory judgment action in deference to pending,

parallel state court proceedings:

[I]n de ciding whether to enter a stay, a

district court should examine the scope of the

pending state court proceeding and the nature

of defenses open there. This inquiry, in

turn, entails consideration of whether the

claims of all parties in interest can

satisfactorily be adjudicated in that

proceeding, whether necessary parties have

been joined, whether such parties are amenable

to process in that pro ceeding, etc. Other

cases

. . . might shed light on a dditional2 W ilton

, 515 U.S. at 283, 115 S. Ct. at 2141 (internal

punctuation ommitted) (citing Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co.

, 316 U.S

491, 495, 62 S. Ct. 1173, 1175-76 (1942)).

4 factors governing a district court’s decision

to stay or to dismiss a declaratory judgment

a ction at the outset. But[,] at least where

another suit involving the same parties and

presenting opportunity for ventilation of the

same state law issues is pending in state

court, a district court might be indulging in

gratuitous interference, if it permitted the

federal declaratory action to proceed. 2

The factors identified in W ilton are similar to th ose

articulated in this court’s cases discussing the issue. S ee, e.g.

,

Southwind Aviation, Inc. v. Berg en Aviation, Inc. , 23 F.3d 948,

950-51 (5th Cir. 1994); Granite State Ins. Co. v. Tandy Corp.

, 986

F.2d 94, 95-96 (5th Cir. 1992); Magnolia Marine Transp. Co. v.

Laplace Towing Corp.

, 964 F.2d 1571, 1581-82 (5th Cir. 1992);

Rowan , 876 F.2d at 28-30.

Unlike the insurer in Wilton

, Agora was not a party to

the state court suit against Robinson Janitorial, but the district

court nonetheless dismissed Agora’s declaratory judgment action.

The court held that: (1) Agora may intervene in the state court

suit and seek the same declaratory judgment concerning its rights

and responsibilities under the policy; (2) alternatively, Agora

could file a separate declaratory judgment action in state court;

and, (3) inasmuch as the case involves complex and novel questions5

of Mississippi insurance law, comit y counsels against exercising

federal jurisdiction.

Agora argues, and we agree, that none of these arguments

sustains the district court’s decision. First, this is not what

the Supreme Court meant in Wilton by use of the term “parallel

state proceedings,” for there is no identity of parties or issues

in the state and federal court suits. W ilton

, 515 U.S. at 290, 115

S. Ct. at 2144. Agora is not a party to the state court liability

suit, it is not a party in any pending state proceeding related to

these events, and it could only bring the insurance issues before

the state courts by affirmatively intervening in the pending

liability action or commencing a separate, independent declaratory

judgment action in state court. Moreover, a state court decision

on the is sues of Robinson Janitorial’s vicarious liability and

negligent supervision/hiring would have no dire ct bearing on the

insurance company’s duty to defend and the scope of policy

coverage; a federal decision on the insurance issues would likewise

have no impact on the state court liability issues. Because there

are no overlapping legal or factual issues in the wrongful death

and declaratory s uits, the district court’s concerns over

duplicative litigation and preclusive effect do not exist.

Second, judicial economy weighs in favor of, rather than

against, a declaratory ruling. This case had been pending in

federal court for over a year when the district court dismissed it3 The insurance issues raised by Agora in the declaratory

judgment suit include:

(1) Whether, under the policy provisions, coverage

exists for injury expected or intended from

the standpoint of the insured party;

(2) whether McClure’s intent is imputed to

Robinson Janitorial for the purposes of

determining insurance coverage; and,

(3) whether the alleged negligent hire and

supervision claims against Robinson are

related to and interdependent on McClure’s

intentional acts and, therefore, not covered

under the policy.

6 sua sponte

. Robinson Janitorial never sought dismissal. Further,

Robinson conc edes that there are no factual disputes between the

parties and that they have fully briefed the merits of the

insurance issues. If the abstention order is upheld, however,

Agora will be forced into the wasteful prospect of commencing the

declaratory judgment process anew in state court.

Finally, the district court’s comity concern has been

overtaken by the march of Fifth Circuit law. In a recent opinion,

this court decided Mississippi insurance law issues that are very

similar, if not identical, to those involved in this case.

American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. 1906 Co.

, 129 F.3d 802 (5th Cir.

1997). 3

In many, perhaps most, cases involv ing true parallel

state and federal court proceedings, some of the factors listed in

Wil ton will favor a federal court’s decision to abstain from

rendering a declaratory judgment and other factors will weigh7

against that decision. We will generally not find an abuse of

discretion in such cases. S ee, e.g.

, Granite State

, supra

. Here,

however, none of the di strict court’s asserted reasons for

abstention is supportable, the state and federal cases are not

truly paral lel, and judicial economy strongly favors the court’s

completion of the task that was well under way when it decided to

abstain. In short, we are constrained to conclude that the

district court abused its discretion. T r avelers Ins. Co. v.

Louisiana Farm Bureau Fed’n, Inc.

, 996 F.2d 774, 779 (5th Cir.

1993). The judgment of dismissal is R EVERSED

, and the case

REMANDED for further proceedings.