Case Name: JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-22
Citations: 287 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 07-5878
Parties: JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 287
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-5878.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 22, 2008.
Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Jerome Farris, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Johnson Controls, Inc., filed this action seeking to declare its former employee, Carolyn Thomas, ineligible for workers' compensation. The district court dismissed the complaint because Thomas already initiated state-court proceedings seeking benefits from Johnson Controls. We affirm the district court's judgment but not its reasoning inasmuch as it grounded the dismissal on Colorado River abstention when it should have invoked its Declaratory-Judgment-Act discretion. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (holding that Colorado River ab stention is inapplicable to actions requesting declaratory relief).
It suffices for disposition of this appeal to say that the district court acted well within its discretion in declining to decide this issue of an employee's right to state workers' compensation benefits. See id.; see also Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 554 (6th Cir.2008). Such a case has no business in federal court, particularly after the state court has reached a decision inconsistent with the requested federal relief. Johnson Controls cited not one example of a federal court entertaining the merits of a state workers' compensation claim. And when confronted at oral argument with the frivolous nature of this case — and worse yet, this appeal — appellant's counsel failed to offer any tenable justification, even when given the opportunity to defend against sua sponte sanctions with a post-argument brief.
We affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint.