Opinion ID: 2830649
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Suit Filed in Anticipation of Lawsuit

Text: The district court found that “[t]he Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in an attempt to foreclose determination of the issues in the state court case, although the present suit was not filed in anticipation of that lawsuit.” One of the DJA’s purposes “is to allow potential defendants to resolve a dispute without waiting to be sued or until the statute of limitations expires. The mere fact that a declaratory judgment action is brought in anticipation of other suits does not require dismissal . . . .” Sherwin–Williams, 343 F.3d at 397 (citation omitted). Sherwin–Williams emphasized the similarities between this and the forum-selection factor. See id. at 398. Both speak to the fairness aspect of the Brillhart/Trejo inquiry—“whether the plaintiff is using the declaratory judgment process to gain access to a federal forum on improper or unfair grounds.” Id. at 391. Often, courts find that anticipatory suits weigh in favor of dismissal when the declaratory judgment plaintiff engaged in “procedural fencing.” Id. at 397 & n.7. For example, this Court has found improper procedural fencing where “the declaratory judgment plaintiff used the federal declaratory judgment statute and the defendant’s inability to file an earlier state court suit for the sole purpose of controlling the state law that would 13 Case: 14-51164 Document: 00513168367 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 No. 14-51164 apply.” Id. at 397 (discussing Mission Ins. Co. v. Puritan Fashions Corp., 706 F.2d 599, 602 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1983)). Here there is no indication of procedural fencing. The district court’s conclusion that the Plaintiff was attempting “to foreclose a determination of the issues in the state court case” is not supported by the record. As previously discussed, 8 the state-court issues were legally distinct from those raised in the declaratory judgment suit. Ironshore fails to convey how any ruling by the federal court could have foreclosed the Texas court’s determination of the applicability of the TWCA exclusive-remedy provision. The federal suit was filed after the Texas action commenced. And to the extent the federal suit was filed in anticipation of a separate state determination of the scope of the insurance provisions, this is a permissible purpose under the DJA. Cf. Sherwin–Williams, 343 F.3d at 398 (“Despite the fact that plaintiff may have predicted that there would be a related suit filed in state court (making the federal suit ‘anticipatory’), ‘without more we cannot say that [the declaratory judgment plaintiff’s] action is an instance of forumshopping instead of a reasonable assertion of its rights under the declaratory judgment statute and diversity jurisdiction.’” (alteration in original) (quoting United Capitol Ins. Co. v. Kapiloff, 155 F.3d 488, 494 (4th Cir. 1998))).