Opinion ID: 2830649
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: State Judicial Decree

Text: The seventh and last factor—“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,” Trejo, 39 F.3d at 591—weighs against dismissal. 10 There is no need to construe a state judicial decree to resolve the issues in this case. Cf. id. at 591 n.8 (“For example, here the district court should determine whether it makes more sense for the state court that approved the First Settlement to interpret it.”). 9 In Agora we also considered the fact that the case “had been pending in federal court for over a year when the district court dismissed it sua sponte.” 149 F.3d at 373. 10 As noted previously, the district court did not explicitly address this issue. 16 Case: 14-51164 Document: 00513168367 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 No. 14-51164 Although this Court reviews a dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard, Orix, 212 F.3d at 895, the district court’s cursory analysis of the Trejo factors leaves much to be desired. All seven of the Trejo factors weigh against dismissal. Thus, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in applying the Trejo factors and dismissing the action. See Sherwin–Williams, 343 F.3d at 401 (holding that a district court abused its discretion in dismissing a declaratory judgment action because federalism, fairness, and efficiency concerns weighed against dismissal).