Opinion ID: 2830649
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Possible Inequities

Text: The district court found that “[a]ny opinion reached by this Court could contradict a ruling in the state court case, which would create inequities by giving the Plaintiff precedence.” Like the two before it, this factor goes to fairness. See id. at 391. Ironshore attacks the district court’s finding because “no state suit exists in which the coverage question is at issue. Nor would a determination of the coverage issues foreclose any determination of the liability issues in the state court case.” Ironshore correctly observes that McGowan is not a party to the declaratory judgment case, and, therefore could not be bound by any determination made by the federal court. See, e.g., Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Eng’g & Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530, 535–36 (5th Cir. 1978) (“[Res judicata] treats a judgment, once rendered, as the full measure of relief to be accorded between the same parties on the same ‘claim’ or ‘cause of action.’ . . . [I]ssue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues actually adjudicated, and essential to the judgment, in a prior litigation between the same parties.”). Safety National points to no other possible inequities created by the exercise of jurisdiction. Because the only possible inequity identified by the district court or Safety National is not supported by the record, this factor weighs against dismissal.