Opinion ID: 764976
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaining jurisdiction

Text: 25 This court reviews the district court's decisions regarding the propriety of hearing actions for declaratory relief for an abuse of discretion. See United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 141 F.3d 916, 918-19 (9th Cir. 1998) (as amended) (citing Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289-90, 132 L. Ed. 2d 214, 115 S. Ct. 2137 (1995)). This is because facts bearing on the usefulness of the declaratory judgment remedy, and the fitness of the case for resolution, are peculiarly within [the district courts'] grasp. Wilton, 515 U.S. at 289. 26 The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), states 27 In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such. 28 (Emphases added.) The case must be within its jurisdiction, i.e., there must be an independent basis for the court's jurisdiction. But even though the district court has jurisdiction, it is not required to, but rather may declare the rights of the parties: 29 a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory action even though subject matter jurisdiction is otherwise proper. . . . Congress. . . created an opportunity, rather than a duty, [for a district court] to grant a new form of relief to qualifying litigants. . . . The normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration. 30