Source: http://openjurist.org/982/f2d/437/sinclair-oil-corporation-v-amoco-production-company
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 19:02:27
Document Index: 318287215

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 1291', '§ 2201', '§ 1291', '§ 1291']

982 F2d 437 Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Amoco Production Company | OpenJurist
982 F. 2d 437 - Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Amoco Production Company	Home982 f2d 437 sinclair oil corporation v. amoco production company
982 F2d 437 Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Amoco Production Company 982 F.2d 437
SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, a Wyoming corporation,Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee,v.AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
It is clear that the district court's order is not a final decision in the technical sense. Generally, § 1291 affords appealability only when the decision " 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.' " Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 275, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1136, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945)). Amoco concedes that the district court's order does not end the litigation on the merits. "[I]ndeed, the order ensures that litigation will continue in the District Court." Id.
Amoco instead relies on the "collateral order" doctrine articulated in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). In Cohen, the Supreme Court recognized a practical exception to the technical construction of § 1291 for "that small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225. The Court later refined the Cohen inquiry into this three-part test:
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978). Jurisdiction under the collateral order exception to § 1291 is unavailable if the order fails to satisfy any of the three requirements. Gulfstream, 485 U.S. at 276, 108 S.Ct. at 1136.
The Supreme Court has twice addressed the collateral order doctrine in the context of motions to stay or dismiss federal litigation pending the resolution of parallel state proceedings. See Gulfstream, 485 U.S. at 271, 108 S.Ct. at 1133; Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). These cases, although arising out of coercive, rather than declaratory, actions, nevertheless lay the analytical framework for deciding the issue presented by this case.
In Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., the Court determined that an order granting a motion to stay parallel federal litigation under the Colorado River doctrine1 is appealable under § 1291. 460 U.S. at 12-13, 103 S.Ct. at 935. In so deciding, the Court focused on the first Cohen criteria--that the order conclusively determine the disputed question--and elaborated on a distinction it had drawn in Coopers & Lybrand regarding the conclusiveness of interlocutory orders. In Coopers & Lybrand, the Court held that a class certification order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) was not appealable as a collateral order because it was subject to alteration or amendment and therefore was "inherently tentative." 437 U.S. at 469 n. 11, 98 S.Ct. at 2458 n. 11. The Moses H. Cone Court, however, made clear that not every interlocutory order is "inherently tentative" simply because it is subject to reconsideration. Rather, "[t]he reasoning of Coopers & Lybrand does not reach all pretrial orders that are formally subject to revision, but only those as to which some revision might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of litigation." Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 12 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. at 935 n. 14. The Court went on to hold that the order granting stay of the federal proceedings was not inherently tentative because there was "no basis to suppose that the District Judge contemplated any reconsideration of his decision to defer to the parallel state-court suit. He surely would not have made that decision in the first instance unless he had expected the state court to resolve all relevant issues adequately." Id. at 13, 103 S.Ct. at 935.
In contrast to its decision in Moses H. Cone regarding an order granting a motion to dismiss or stay, the Supreme Court has held that an order denying a motion to dismiss or stay federal coercive proceedings pursuant to Colorado River was not appealable under § 1291. Gulfstream, 485 U.S. 271, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). Focusing again on whether the order "conclusively determined the disputed question," the Court returned to its distinction between the "two kinds of nonfinal orders: those that are 'inherently tentative' and those that, although technically amendable, are 'made with the expectation that they will be the final word on the subject addressed.' " Id. at 277, 108 S.Ct. at 1137 (citations omitted). The Court found that, because a district court might wish to await further developments or gauge the progress of the state court proceedings, an order denying a motion to stay does not necessarily imply that the court has made a final resolution of the issue. Indeed, the Court expressed its belief that "a district court usually will expect to revisit and reassess an order denying a stay in light of events occurring in the normal course of litigation." Id. at 278, 108 S.Ct. at 1137.
Amoco correctly argues that the existence of parallel state coercive and federal declaratory proceedings presents a significantly different problem for the federal district court facing a motion to dismiss or stay. The Federal Declaratory Judgments Act authorizes, but does not compel, federal jurisdiction over suits seeking declaratory relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2201.3 Thus, unlike coercive actions, declaratory actions do not invoke the federal judiciary's "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise its jurisdiction. Accordingly, federal courts have wide discretion in refusing to hear duplicative declaratory proceedings. See Kunkel v. Continental Casualty Co., 866 F.2d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir.1989). Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that "[o]rdinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issue." Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 1175, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942). Amoco argues that this difference--the discretion vested in the district courts to decline to hear declaratory judgment actions--enables this court to hear its appeal under the collateral order exception to § 1291. We disagree.
In Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), the Supreme Court held that, despite the "virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them," abstention from hearing duplicative coercive litigation is appropriate, in exceptional circumstances, "for reasons of wise judicial administration." Id. at 817-18, 96 S.Ct. at 1246
In Terra Nova Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 900 Bar, Inc., 887 F.2d 1213 (3d Cir.1989), the court held that the grant of a motion to stay federal declaratory proceedings is appealable under § 1291. Id. at 1221. Although not involving parallel state litigation, the decision relied extensively on the principles announced in Moses H. Cone. Id. 887 F.2d at 1218-20
We decline to treat Amoco's appeal as an application for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Scholes, 601 F.2d 1151, 1154 (10th Cir.1979)
Home982 f2d 437 sinclair oil corporation v. amoco production company