Opinion ID: 23000
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 1981 Ordinance Declaratory Judgment Claim

Text: 25 28 U.S.C. § 2201 provides, in relevant part: In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration . . . . The word may gives the district court more discretion to refuse to hear a claim for declaratory judgment than the claims addressed in Part IV.A, supra. Trejo, 39 F.3d at 590 & n.6, 7. However, Trejo clearly established that the district court should not dismiss . . . [a] declaratory judgment suit simply because it does not involve a question of federal law. Id. at 591 n.10. This appears to be exactly what the court below did. Trejo confirmed and restated the test for the discretionary dismissal of declaratory judgment actions set forth in Travelers Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Fed'n, 996 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1993). The seven Trejo factors that must be considered on the record before a discretionary, nonmerits dismissal of a declaratory judgment action occurs are: 26 [1)] whether there is a pending state action in which all of the matters in controversy may be fully litigated, 2) whether the plaintiff filed suit in anticipation of a lawsuit filed by the defendant, 3) whether the plaintiff engaged in forum shopping in bringing the suit, 4) whether possible inequities in allowing the declaratory plaintiff to gain precedence in time or to change forums exist, 5) whether the federal court is a convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, . . . 6) whether retaining the lawsuit in federal court would serve the purposes of judicial economy, . . . [and 7)] whether the federal court is being called on to construe a state judicial decree involving the same parties and entered by the court before whom the parallel state suit between the same parties is pending. 27 Trejo, 39 F.3d at 590-91. Trejo and Travelers held that unless the district court addresses and balances the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act and the factors relevant to the abstention doctrine on the record, it abuses its discretion. Trejo, 39 F.3d at 590 (quoting Travelers, 996 F.2d at 778). Here, as in Travelers and Trejo, the district court did not attempt to provide even a cursory analysis of the pertinent facts and law. Travelers, 996 F.2d at 778. Thus, as in those cases, the dismissal of Vulcan's declaratory judgment action was improper.