Document: 515 U.S. 277115 S.Ct. 2137132 L.Ed.2d 214 Leslie WILTON, etc., et al., Petitionersv.SEVEN FALLS COMPANY al. No. 94-562. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 27, 1995. Decided June 12, Syllabus * Petitioner underwriters refused to defend or indemnify respondents under several commercial liability insurance policies in litigation between and other parties over ownership operation certain Texas oil gas properties. After a verdict was entered against they notified petitioners that intended file state court suit on policies, sought declaratory judgment federal their did not cover respondents' liability. Respondents filed moved dismiss or, alternative, stay petitioners' action. The District ground encompassed same coverage issues raised action, Appeals affirmed. Noting district has broad discretion grant decline judgment, require application test articulated Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. States, 424 800, 96 1236, 47 483, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 1, 103 927, 74 765, which courts must point "exceptional circumstances" justify staying dismissing proceedings. reviewed Court's decision for abuse discretion, found none. Held: 1. discretionary standard Brillhart Excess Ins. Co., 316 491, 62 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620, governs court's action during pendency parallel Pp. ____. (a) In addressing circumstances virtually identical those present here, made clear possess determining whether when entertain an Declaratory Judgment Act (Act), even otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdiction. While set out exclusive list factors governing exercise this it provide some guidance, indicating that, at least where another involving presenting opportunity ventilation law is pending court, might be indulging gratuitous interference if permitted proceed. (b) Act's distinct features vesting with greater actions than forth Cone, neither dealt judgments. On its face, makes textual commitment by specifying "may " declare litigants' rights, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (emphasis added), repeatedly been characterized as enabling Act, confers rather absolute right upon litigant. (c) Petitioners' argument despite unique breadth lack hear outset depends untenable proposition knowing litigation's commencement will relief, nonetheless go through futile hearing case merits first. Nothing recommends reading, unwilling impute Congress intention such wasteful expenditure judicial resources. 2. courts' decisions about propriety should de novo. It more consistent vest first instance, because facts bearing remedy's usefulness, case's fitness resolution, are particularly within grasp. Proper appeal can appropriate guidance courts. 3. acted bounds relief case, since proceedings, issues, were underway court. P. 29 F.3d 623 (CA5 1994), O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, all Members joined, except BREYER, who took no part consideration case. Michael A. Orlando, Westmont, NJ, petitioners. Werner Powers, Dallas, TX, respondents. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 This asks Co. America, 1620 (1942), developed 483 (1976), 765 (1983), what review appeals evaluate do so. 2 early 1992, dispute (the Hill Group) properties Winkler County, Texas, appeared likely culminate litigation. Group asked (London Underwriters)1 them policies. London Underwriters letter dated July 31, 1992. September after 3-week trial, County jury excess $100 million various claims. 3 gave notice late November December 9, Southern basing jurisdiction diversity citizenship 1332. declaration (1988 ed., Supp. V), Group's judgment. negotiations counsel, voluntarily dismissed January 22, 1993. so, however, express condition give two weeks' decided bring policy. 4 February 23, 1993, Travis Texas. refiled 24, As promised, initiated 26, 1993 County. codefendants joined asserted claims insurers, thus rendering nondiverse nonremovable. 5 day Underwriters' receiving submissions from issue, 30, observed lawsuit encom- passed determined warranted order avoid piecemeal bar attempts forum shopping. timely appeal. See Hospital, supra, 10, S.Ct., 933-934 (a proceedings favor "final decisio[n]" appealable 1291). 6 Fifth Circuit affirmed unpublished 29, 1994. precedent, "[a] (or grant) judgment," Wilton Seven Falls 41 934, 935 citing Torch, Inc. LeBlanc, 947 F.2d 193, 194 1991), River, Citing interests avoiding duplicative shopping, Wilton, F.3d, 935. 7 We granted certiorari, 513 ----, 115 571, 130 488 (1994), resolve circuit conflicts concerning litigation, compare, e.g., Employers Wausau Missouri Elec. Works, 23 1372, 1374, n. (CA8 1994) (pursuant may absent circumstances"); Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Connecticut Bank & Trust, 806 411, 413 (CA2 1986) (same), Travelers Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., 996 774, 778, 12 1993) inapplicable actions); Mitcheson Harris, 955 235, 237-238 (CA4 1992) applicable appellate Fidelity Guaranty Murphy Oil USA, 21 259, 263, (reviewing discretion); Christopher Marcus, 915 794, 802 1990) Genentech, Eli Lilly 998 931, 936 (CA Fed novo ); Cincinnati Holbrook, 867 1330, 1333 (CA11 1989) (same). now affirm. II 8 Over 50 years ago, addressed before us today. An insurer, anticipating coercive suit, nonliability garnishment insurer had added defendant. reversed, finding ordered proceed merits. Reversing remanding held "[a]lthough Federal Judgments compulsion jurisdiction." Id., 494, 1175. explained "[o]rdinarily would uneconomical well vexatious governed law, parties." 495, 1175-1176. question presented found, "whether questions controversy foreclosed substantive better settled proceeding court." Ibid. 9 jurisdictional prerequisites. Although useful regard. indicated, example, deciding enter stay, examine "the scope nature defenses open there." inquiry, turn, entails interest satisfactorily adjudicated proceeding, necessary have amenable process etc." Other cases, noted, shed light additional outset. ibid. But indicated "[g]ratuitous interference," ibid., 10 Brillhart, without more, clearly supports (That here stayed, dismissed, little moment regard, bind principles res judicata.) Nonetheless, argue, Courts agreed, intervening supplanted Brillhart's notions properly only circumstances." view, recent cases established compelling reason—which, say, lacking —in To argument, three handed down decades Brillhart. 11 Government brought 1345 seeking water appointment master, enjoining uses diversions parties. Pet. Cert. O.T.1974, 74-940, pp. 39a-40a. deference ongoing 504 (1974), Government's abstention inappropriate. reversed again. Without discussing began premise "virtually unflagging obligation" conferred Congress. 813, 817-818, 1244, 1246-1247, Cohens Virginia, 19 (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, 257 (1821). determined, could abstain assumption "exceptional" circumstances, exceptional U.S., 818-820, 1246-1248. Specifically, deemed dispositive policy adjudication rights; existence elaborate scheme resolution claims; absence any filing complaint, prior motion dismiss; extensive suit; 300-mile distance situs issue; participation related Two we Will Calvert Fire 437 655, 98 2552, 57 (1978), plurality stated while 'the having jurisdiction,' id., 662, 2557, quoting McClellan Carland, 217 268, 282, 30 501, 505, 54 762 (1910), 'under concerned damages alleged violation securities laws arose outside context, invoked authority. according plurality, "in way undermine[d] conclusion defer concurrent is, last analysis, committed discretion." Will, 664, 2558. Blackmun, concurring criticized recognizing undercut "sweeping language" 667, 2560. Four Justices dissent urged supplied standard. 13 plurality's suggestion beyond context judgments rejected (1983). test, permissive compel arbitration Arbitration combination Blackmun four dissenting five worked changes law. 'Abdication obligation decide cases,' reasoned, 'can justified . circumstance repair State serve important countervailing interest.' 14, 963, 1244. non-exclusive relevant including either res, relative convenience fora, avoidance obtained extent provides rules merits, adequacy Evaluating each these factors, concluded was, 14 Relying post-Brillhart developments, contend regime, substantial latitude (and need actions), outmoded relic era. disagree. Neither upheld dismissal nor not, V). Distinct believe, Cone. No subsequent our called into facts. 15 Since inception, understood confer rights litigants. statute legal relations interested party declaration," V) added). generally E. Borchard, 312-314 (2d ed. 1941); Discretion Refuse Jurisdiction Actions Judgments, 26 Minn.L.Rev. 677 (1942). statute's leeway always suggest, distinguish areas concepts surface. D. Shapiro, Discretion, 60 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 543 (1985); cf. O. Fiss Rendleman, Injunctions 106-108 1984) (describing nonstatutory open-ended standards like "irreparable injury," injunction context). "an litigant." Public Serv. Comm'n Wycoff 344 237, 241, 73 236, 239, 97 291 (1952); see also Green Mansour, 474 64, 72, 106 423, 428, 88 371 Cardinal Chemical Morton International, 508 17, 113 1967, 1974 124 (1993). When said done, concluded, particular depend circumspect sense informed teachings experience functions power." Wycoff, 243, 240. 16 Acknowledging, must, Brief Petitioners 22 ("District circumstances; requested following full trial beneficial purpose thereby served equity counsels"). persuaded distinction. statutory language If sound determines complaint purpose, cannot incumbent 17 agree, practical purposes, Professor half century ago "[t]here nothing automatic obligatory 'jurisdiction' court" 313. By place remedial arrow quiver; created opportunity, duty, new form qualifying Consistent nonobligatory remedy, authorized, arguments drawn close.2 normal principle adjudicate yields considerations practicality wise administration. III 18 Judge Friendly observed, "does speak," vested alone entire system. Friendly, Indiscretion 31 Emory L.J. 747, 778 (1982). urge follow refrain granting) See, F.2d, 936; 1333. invitation. believe usefulness peculiarly Cf. First Options Chicago, Kaplan, 514 1920, 1926, --- ---- (1995) ("[T]he reviewing attitude takes toward respective institutional advantages ") (citation omitted); Miller Fenton, 104, 114, 445, 451, 405 (1985) fact/law distinction times turned determination administration justice, one actor positioned issue question"). true calls "judicial hardened rule," 293, proper can, think, reject suggestion, "is tantamount review" all. IV sum, conclude actions, necessarily bound up granting discretion. attempt time delineate outer boundaries raising there Like Appeals, 20 Affirmed. BREYER syllabus constitutes but prepared Reporter Decisions reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 287, 499. For sake clarity, adopt Appeals' manner referencing note basis declining often preferable course, insofar assures risk reason, fails controversy. .e.g., Bator, Meltzer, Mishkin, Hart Wechsler's System 1451, (3d 1988).

Category: 8