Legal Document

437 U.S. 655 98 Supreme Court Reporter 2552 57 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 504 Hubert L. WILL, Judge, District Court, Northern of Illinois, Petitioner,v.CALVERT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. Number 77-693. Argued April 19, 1978. Decided June 23, Syllabus After Calvert Fire Insurance company (hereafter respondent) had advised American Mutual Reinsurance (American) that respondent was rescinding its membership in a reinsurance pool operated, sued an Illinois state court for declaration the agreement with remained effect. Six months later, answer asserted unenforceability on grounds violated, inter alia, Securities Act 1933; Rule 10b-5, promulgated under Exchange 1934 Act); and Act, counterclaimed damages all defense claims except one involving which Act's terms exclusively enforceable federal courts. Respondent same day filed complaint against Federal American's alleged 10b-5 violation, joined therewith based each other defensive counts made state-court action. moved to dismiss or abate federal-court action, motion being contention not "security" within meaning 1933 ground earlier proceeding included issues 10b-5. Petitioner, granted defer until completion proceeding, claim. He rejected respondent's should proceed entire case because exclusive jurisdiction over claim, noted bound provide equitable relief sought by recognizing valid claim as Petitioner heard argument on, but has yet decided, question whether interest constituted defined Act. petitioner motions reconsider his stay order refused certify interlocutory appeal, petitioned Appeals writ mandamus directing adjudicate Thereafter court, relying Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. versus States, 424 800, 96 1236, 47 483, petition directed "proceed immediately Calvert's relief" Held: The judgment is reversed. Pp. 661-667; 667-668. 560 Reporter, 2nd 792, Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, STEWART, WHITE, STEVENS, concluded: 1 Issuance impermissibly interfered petitioner's discretion control docket. 661-667. 2 (a) Though appeals power issue district pending when it court's duty do so, burden moving party show right issuance "clear indisputable." Pacific KF135 P2 662. 3 (b) Where there duplicative litigation courts, deci ion courts largely committed Brillhart Excess insurance Co., 316 491, 494, 62 1173, 1175, 86 L.Ed. 1620, even matters law are involved, River, supra, at 820, 1247. 662-664. 4 (c) This case, unlike did involve outright dismissal free urge decision new information progress case; extent deferral (contrary argument) equivalent dismissal. 664-665. 5 (d) exercise may be subject review proper ought overridden mandamus. matter discretion, cannot said litigant's particular result Here heedlessly (the only concurrently resolved both courts), far record shows delay adjudicating simply product normal excessive workload, compounded "the unfortunate consequence making judge litigant" this proceeding. Ex parte Fahey, 332 258, 260, 67 1558, 1559, 91 2041. 665-667. 6 BLACKMUN, who view diversity no application federal-issue concluded premature. must reversed have done more than require reconsideration light decided after order. .667-668 7 Milton V. Freeman, Washington, D. C., petitioner. 8 Louis Loss, Cambridge, Mass., respondents. 9 REHNQUIST announced delivered opinion STEVENS joined. 10 On August 15, 1977, Seventh Circuit ordering petitioner, "to immediately" upon brought respondent, despite pendency substantially identical between parties 797. felt our recent 483 (1976), compelled writ. We certiorari consider propriety use Court's concurrent proceedings, 434 1008, 716, 54 750, we now reverse. 11 * writes property casualty insurance. operates whereby number primary insurers protect themselves unanticipated losses. Membership requires payment premiums members indemnification event losses exceed those calculated. early 1974, year notified election rescind became member. 12 In July Cook County, Ill., obtain full force suit violations 1933, 1934, Maryland Law, common fraud. With counterclaim seeking $2 million from set up 1934. Since § 27 48 Statutes-at-Large 902, amended, 15 Code KF62 78aa (1976 ed.), enforce violation 17 Regulations 240.10b-5 (1977), issued 10(b) 78j(b) ed.). Joined count were Mutual's 13 February 1975, seven begun less month action latter. substantive assertion fact proceedings commenced six before every 14 May Judge Will observing tentative trial date already been court. would therefore wasteful. noting action.1 Only stayed aspects "only very limited monetary viable court." App. Pet. Certiorari B-9. 9, oral basic security rendered issue.2 two appeal pursuant 28 1292(b). 26, 1976, claims.3 Nearly 1934." F.2d, 797.4 16 Will's own 750 (1978). II correct disposition hinges large part appropriate standard inquiry employed determining direct broad authority "modify, vacate, aside reverse" such further remand "as just circumstances." 2106. By contrast, All Writs 1651(a), "necessary aid their respective jurisdictions." Whereas simple showing error suffice reversal circumstances "would undermine settled limitations appellate orders." 389 90, n. 6, 88 269, 275, 19 305 (1967). 18 As repeatedly reaffirmed cases Kerr 426 394, 402, 2119, 2123, 725 Bankers Life & Cas. Holland, 346 379, 382, 74 145, 147, 106 (1953) "traditional confine inferior lawful prescribed compel so." Roche Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 21, 63 938, 941, 87 1185 (1943). makes exceeded bounds jurisdiction. Rather, contends entering order, Ibid. There can doubt that, where persistently without reason refuses properly it, "in [it] given law." Comstock, Wall. 270, 21 493 (1873). "Otherwise could defeated purpose statute authorizing thwarted unauthorized obstructing appeal." Roche, 25, S.Ct., 941.5 To say "when so," U.S., states does decide any case. It essential satisfy 'clear indisputable.' " 384, 148, quoting Duell, 172 576, 582, 286, 287, 43 559 (1899). urges indisputable" adjudication regard proceedings. turn. III 20 well established bar concerning having jurisdiction." McClellan Carland, 217 268, 282, 30 501, 505, 762 (1910). equally "under compulsion jurisdiction," 1620 (1942), controversy expeditiously Although most decisions discussing stays dismissals actions concerned conflicts districts e. g., Kerotest Mfg. C-O-Two Equipment 342 180, 72 219, 200 (1952); Landis North 299 248, 163, 81 153 (1936), recognized relevance analogous presented here. See 817-819, 1246-1247. situations, "carefully considered judgment," id., 818, 1246 always so clear. McClellan, facts similar here, indicated might deference proceedings.6 Such automatic Congress authorized fewer concomitant tension rarely result. However, overlap increased, soon situations often arise 22 "Ordinarily uneconomical vexatious declaratory another presenting issues, governed law, parties. Gratuitous interference orderly comprehensive avoided." Brillhart, 495, 1175. 23 Furthermore, 1247, involved 24 true emphasized virtually unflagging obligation them." 817, 1246. That language underscores conviction factor mind, way undermines conclusion is, last analysis, discretion. Seizing phrase "unflagging obligation" upheld correctness final little bolster extraordinary decision. 25 think considerably importance came 1291 following rather through effort plaintiff seek agreed, deferring "equivalent dismissal." 796. loath rest analysis ubiquitous phrase, if used carelessly precise definition impede assist sound resolution underlying legal issue. 26 Obviously, dismissed appealed Appeals, required he extent, least, reasons reiteration rule generally No seriously contend busy judge, confronted competing demands time inevitable scheduling difficulties unavailability lawyers, parties, witnesses, entrusted wide latitude setting calendar. Had initiative completed, "equivalent" granting defer, best afforded highly dubious accomplished ruling favorably party's change question. d scretion modification cf.Landis, 256-259, 166-168, convinced mandamus.7 indisputable."8 29 contemporaneous presented. Whether purported consideration courts.9 ruled obstinately "unauthorized citing 287 241, 53 129, 77 283 (1932). Calvert, however, neither nor proved heedless refusal basis Its offers bare allegation effect" abated 12. never sparse us will support inference. So appears, load business 2041 (1947). 31 Reversed. 32 concurring judgment. 33 plurality's opinion, ante, 662-663, appears me indicate regards fully compatible N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions am sure so. I—as STEWART STEVENS—was dissent holding what assumes, not, cut back Frankfurter's sweeping 494-495, 1175-1176*. 34 Because prior guidance affords area, join Appeals' River. 35 Chief BURGER, dissenting. 36 general BRENNAN'S dissenting opinion. write separately emphasize unnecessary determine context ever give res judicata effect implicating Our concern here delaying BRENNAN correctly notes, whatever issue, remains resolve explicitly reserved minor caveat, dissent. 37 BRENNAN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MARSHALL, POWELL join, 38 falls none three abstention categories, my Brother strains bring principles govern narrow class "exceptional" ist. 813-818, 1246, (1976). straining, reaches supported policy precedent, ignores difficult misapprehends significance below, casts stood unquestioned nearly 70 years. Moreover, lurks ominous potential abdication opinion's disturbing indifference them," 1246—for obedience becomes important when, exclusive. 39 Clavert Co.'s (1934 Act), agree precisely claims. goes. 40 instituted it—an containing recognize Supremacy Clause—it various provisions. complaint, money outcome suit. formally claim—whether participatory "security"—the like suit, suspension. 41 Section gives arising jurisdictional grant evinces legislative desire uniform determination tribunals expert administration laws sensitive national concerns them. When thus mandates shall specified claims, "well established" principle1 accepted 662 (1910), governs multo fortiori. Yet, completely inapposite disregards principle forth pronouncement 42 matter. reversed, abuse reversing reasoned: "Although t e Declaratory Judgments bill addressed Aetna Casualty Quarles, Cir., 92 321; Consumers Finance Service, 101 514; Automobile Freundt, 103 613 . rested since adjudicated, unwarranted. certainly relevant assume rights Ordinarily parties." 1175-1176 (emphasis added). 44 readily apparent, crucial approval factors absent First, founded diversity, Second, significantly, Under provision empowering entertain suits, 2201, assumption suits discretionary. section provides: "In actual filing pleading, declare relations interested ." (Emphasis added.) primarily discretionary found permissible. clear lower approvingly cited Brillhart—American (CA7 1939); 514 (CA3 1938); 321 (CA4 1937)—all favor permissive nature jurisdiction.2 Obviously logic pertinent where, nondiscretionary, 45 unpersuasive grope supporting precedent engages especially lamentable Terms ago Wate States. here: parallel falling traditional categories abstention. explained contrast paralleling "virtually limited, justify inaction "exceptional." Id., Just how admonition permitting due presence wise judicial abstention." previously '[a]bdication justified [the abstention] doctrine exceptional repair clearly serve countervailing interest,' 813, 1244, County Allegheny Frank Mashuda 360 185, 188-189, 79 1060, 1063, 1163 (1959), warranting "for administration" rare indeed. 46 present There, decisive staying "[t]he policy," evinced McCarran Amendment, "avoid[ing the] piecemeal water river system recognizes availability systems means achieving [this] goa[l]." 819, comparable favoring unitary exists fact, opposite Ignoring wholesale analytical framework whose vitality questioned, seemingly focuses four secondary case—the initiated suit—and finds sufficient insulate review. Even putting case-reading errors—its flouting misreliance misapplication —and analyzing erroneous terms, still Quite conveniently, avoids discussion possible collateral-estoppel effects affirmative court.3 sure, preclusive unresolved Note, Res Judicata: Exclusive Jurisdiction Effect Prior State-Court Determinations, Va.L.Rev. 1360 For myself, confess serious accord jurisdiction; surely determinations disable de novo purely questions surrounding Cotler Inter- Orthopaedic 526 537 1975); McGough First Arlington National Bank, 519 552 Clark Watchie, 513 994 (CA9 1975). Learned Hand Lyons Westinghouse Electric 222 184, 189 (CA2 1955), taken imply immunity prejudgment elsewhere." make sense, fairness economy, specific findings historical raised defense, see Granader Public 417 75 (CA6 1969), why determinations. least arguable creating defining assumed litigated procedure—a fair example, thought liberal discovery procedures factual disputes disagree much expose failing judicata/collateral estoppel problem evaluating view, regardless effect, incumbent Court—at absence overriding reasons—expeditiously If accorded judgment, effectively thwarted, effective interpretation frustrated. A undesirable possibly compelling hand, adjudicated event, nothing transpires affect Thus, question, Inter-County supra; Lecor, Incorporated 502 104 1974). 49 evaluated dis retion" La Buy Howes Leather 352 249, 257, 309, 314, 290 (1957), prong 95, 273, (1967), (1943) permits [an court] proper; complete dearth asserts, "has 1934," "not claim." Ante, 666. While technically accurate, characterization status below utterly shed illumination procedural posture writ, 21/2 years dispositive, disputed transaction Brief E-1, thereby depriving 50 held lie improper preserve Beacon Theatres, Westover, 359 500, 948, 988 (1959). Where, these justifications present, questioned. affirm Appeals. contended "entitled rescission purchase aforesaid security" violation. D-5. complaint. E-6. Weiner Shearson, Hammill 521 822 State Bank Altheimer, 430 754 1970). reached security, struck counterclaim. Appellate affirmed, either 2(b) McCarran-Ferguson 1012(b) exempted reach secu ities laws. 52 Ill.App.2d 922, Ill.Dec. 670, 367 Eastern pet. leave denied, 50,085 (Jan. 1978), cert. 77-1361, 436 906, 2238, 56 404 noted, apply recognition defense. state-law 794 2. went note: "The behind supports improper." 797 6. classic example eventual Thermtron Products, Hermansdorfer, 423 336, 584, 542 remanded controlling statute. dissenters urged intended orders, inappropriate bar. 354, 594 (REHNQUIST, J., C. dissenting). held, cause Carland affidavit attempting defend completed "pass sufficiency authorize orders ' 283, first instance. instance approved mere warned thereafter dangers practice. "Courts faced petitions peremptory writs careful lest they suffer misled labels 'abuse discretion' 'want power' into nonappealable erroneous." 275 contrary. Both agreed jury trial. 511, 957; ibid. (STEWART, permissible," 508, 955, postpone Here, permissible apparent Term General Atomic Felter, 12, 1939, 480 lacks restrain "[F]ederal Courts capable preventing misuse purposes harassment." 1940. encompassed relief. requests. conceded, find merit statutory distinguishes aspect desired See, 344-345, 589-590, (1976); Meredith Winter Haven, 320 228, 234-235, 64 7, 10-11, These recognized, seeks relief, unbridled 515, observed: remedy finally settle merely pending. Surety 321. refused, available necessarily determined suit." deferred federalism River," "reach collateral retained declined resolve."

Classification Label: 8