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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENSTOOTH RANCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00006-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Before the Court is plaintiff Henstooth Ranch LLC’s (“Henstooth’s”) motion to stay. Dkt. 

No. 15. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate 

for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 14, 

2017. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

BACKGROUND

In November 2015, Sonoma Land Trust (“SLT”) sued Henstooth and its members, Peter 

and Toni Thompson, in Sonoma County Superior Court for violation of a conservation easement 

(the “SLT Action”). See SLT Action Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) at 88-106. SLT alleges that 

Henstooth and the Thompsons violated the easement by constructing a new road, removing an old 

oak tree, and causing other property damage. Id. SLT asserts three causes of action: (i) violation 

of the conservation easement; (ii) breach of contract; and (iii) cutting, carrying off, or injuring 

trees. Henstooth tendered the SLT Action to Burlington under a liability insurance policy and 

Burlington denied coverage. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) at ¶¶ 15-16. Trial in the SLT Action is set 

to begin on June 2, 2017. Leslie Decl. (Dkt. No. 15-1) ¶ 6.

Case 3:17-cv-00006-SI Document 24 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

Henstooth filed this declaratory relief action in Contra Costa County Superior Court on 

November 21, 2016 and served defendant Burlington Insurance Company (“Burlington”) on 

December 20, 2016. See Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1) ¶ 6; id. Ex. 1, Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) 

at 2-6.1 Burlington removed the action to this Court on January 3, 2017. The complaint seeks a 

declaration of rights under liability insurance policies and that Burlington, as insurer, has a duty to 

defend or indemnify Henstooth in the SLT Action. Id. Henstooth now moves to stay this case

pending resolution of the SLT Action. Mot. (Dkt. No. 15).

LEGAL STANDARD

“A district court has discretion to stay or dismiss an action for declaratory relief over 

which it has jurisdiction.” Century Sur. Co. v. Byal, No. 10-3917-WHA, 2011 WL 2550832, at *2

(citing Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288 (1995)); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 

681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 

power to control its own docket.”). “If there are parallel state proceedings involving the same 

issues and parties pending at the time the federal declaratory relief action is filed, there is a 

presumption that the entire suit should be heard in state court.” Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 

F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). However, “[t]he pendency of a state court 

action does not, of itself, require a district court to refuse federal declaratory relief.” Id. “[T]here 

is no presumption in favor of abstention in declaratory actions generally, nor in insurance 

coverage cases specifically.” Id.

District courts in the Ninth Circuit utilize the Brillhart factors as their “philosophic 

touchstone” in considering whether to stay or dismiss an action for declaratory relief. Id. & n.5; 

see Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942); Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kearns, 15 

F.3d 142 (9th Cir. 1994). The Brillhart factors guide district courts to “avoid needless 

determination of state law issues; . . . discourage litigants from filing declaratory actions as a 

means of forum shopping; and . . . avoid duplicative litigation.” Dizol, 133 F.3d at 1225. 

 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, pinpoint citations are to ECF-generated page numbers.

Case 3:17-cv-00006-SI Document 24 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

Additionally, a court may consider “whether the declaratory action will settle all aspects of the 

controversy”; whether it “will serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relations at issue”; 

whether declaratory relief “is being sought merely for the purposes of procedural fencing or to 

obtain a ‘res judicata’ advantage”; or whether the action “will result in entanglement between the 

federal and state court systems.” Id. at 1225 n.5 (citing Kearns, 15 F.3d at 145 (Garth, J., 

concurring)). “In addition, the district court might also consider the convenience of the parties, 

and the availability and relative convenience of other remedies.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Neither party argues that the Court should dismiss this case under Wilton and its progeny.

Nor has plaintiff requested a remand; it seeks only to stay this action for its convenience. This 

order focuses only on plaintiff’s request for a stay.

As an initial matter, the Court places particular emphasis on the fact that Henstooth filed 

this declaratory relief action, not Burlington. Henstooth claims it filed this action to “preserve and 

assert its rights under the policy,” yet it faced no imminent statutory or contractual deadline to file. 

Mot. at 3. Now, much of Henstooth’s motion to stay this action is based upon the prejudice it will 

purportedly face in having to “fight a two-front war.” The second “front” – this declaratory relief 

action – is of Henstooth’s own creation. As such, Henstooth’s claims of prejudice in this regard 

are unpersuasive.

The Court now turns to the relevant Brillhart factors to determine whether a stay is 

appropriate here. Henstooth argues that this declaratory relief action would “require needless 

determination of state law issues and duplicative litigation.” Mot. at 10. Henstooth argues that 

many factual issues in this case will overlap with those in the SLT Action, such as “what 

precipitated the tree removal and also the subsequent alleged property damage, what did 

Henstooth Ranch and the Thompsons do, what were Henstooth Ranch and the Thompsons 

supposed to do, who (if anyone) is at fault, and who is ultimately responsible.” Id. (citing Leslie 

Decl. ¶ 10). 

Based on the record, the Court does not see a significant overlap between the two actions. 

Case 3:17-cv-00006-SI Document 24 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

The SLT Action will turn on, among other things, whether the defendants’ removing trees, 

building a road, and damaging land violated SLT’s conservation easement. This declaratory relief 

action turns on whether the property damage is a covered “occurrence” (i.e., accident) under the 

Burlington insurance policy. In this action, Burlington will seek to prove that Henstooth acted 

intentionally in building a road, moving a tree, and causing other damage. Findings on this issue

would not interfere with the state court’s determination of whether Henstooth or the Thompsons 

violated the SLT easement. While some discovery will overlap between the two actions, the 

overlap is not likely to be significant or prejudicial. In the Court’s view, this action can be 

resolved without any prejudice to Henstooth in the SLT Action, especially where the SLT Action 

will likely proceed to final judgment well ahead of this case. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Superior 

Court, 178 Cal. App. 4th 221, 235 (2009). 

Henstooth further argues that “[t]here is no inconvenience or prejudice to Burlington by

having to wait a few extra months” before proceeding with this declaratory relief action, but that 

Henstooth will face significant prejudice in having to litigate two actions simultaneously. Reply 

(Dkt. No. 23) at 4-5. As set forth above, however, Henstooth’s arguments about fighting a “twofront war” lack persuasive force. Henstooth filed this action and, absent a concrete risk of 

prejudice, this action will proceed. 

Because Henstooth does not argue any other factors in favor of a stay, the Court ends its 

analysis here. Henstooth’s motion to stay is hereby DENIED. If, however, a clear potential for 

prejudice arises during discovery or motion practice, Henstooth may file a renewed motion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to stay is DENIED without prejudice.

This order resolves Dkt. No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00006-SI Document 24 Filed 03/27/17 Page 4 of 4