Court Opinion

ID: 9458637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:57:24.862745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:50.145629
License: Public Domain

ENGEL, District Judge
(concurring in remand).
I agree with the majority that, in the face of conflicting affidavits, an eviden-tiary hearing was necessary, at least if requested. As to the propriety of “speaking motions” under Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see, generally, Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1364.
I concur in remand primarily because the trial judge himself acknowledged that a request for such a hearing was made and refused.1 Both counsel and the trial judge seem to have been uncertain whether an evidentiary hearing was available as a matter of right, and remand for that purpose would appear to be in the best interests of justice under the circumstances. At the same time, in fairness to the trial judge, it should be noted that the confusion on the point is chargeable to the conduct of counsel for appellant and not the court. The request for such a hearing was hardly unequivocal. The affidavit of Robin’s manager, Martin M. Brown, had already *1197been submitted, and he was also personally present. Appellant, as we properly hold here, had a right to have the weight and credibility of Brown’s testimony tested by his personal appearance, under oath, at the proceedings. Whether this was actually necessary, in view of the affidavits filed, was peculiarly within the knowledge of trial counsel. If it was, counsel should have made the fact known to the court in clear terms, so that error on the court’s part might have been avoided. Instead of making this decision himself, and asserting the right, counsel impliedly left the decision to the court,2 which observed that “I don’t believe that testimony is necessary.” (Appendix p. 72).
While the practice of having witnesses available to testify on a point, if the court feels the need to hear them, may be courteous, it is not to be condoned as a means to lead the trial judge into reversible error if the courtesy is declined. It does not seem too much of a burden to insist that, if oral testimony was deemed important, counsel should have moved directly for an evidentiary hearing, or for a continuance for that purpose, or, at a minimum directly have requested of the court permission to call the witness to testify.
The majority opinion expresses uncertainty as to whether “dismissal was ordered to be without prejudice because the court wished to leave no question that there was no adjudication on the merits or because the dismissal was in the exercise of its discretion to decline jurisdiction.”
The opinion of the trial court, delivered orally from the bench, would appear rather clearly to support the first supposition:
“Now, both parties have relied heavily on the Goodrich case and the Court has reviewed the briefs and heard the oral arguments and the cases presented to the Court. From my reading of the Goodrich case, there appears to be no controversy in the instant action sufficient enough to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the Declaratory Judgment Act. In the Goodrich case on page 1019, the court discusses what is sufficient and it concludes that where no charge or threat of infringement is made, jurisdiction would not lie. The holding there was that while a formal charge of infringement was lacking, a course of conduct indicating infringement would be enough.
“Here, there is no formal charge or, in the opinion of the Court, no contemplation of one. This conclusion is based upon the affidavits of To-macek and Klaas attached to the brief. Further, the interference does not give rise to a controversy. Here, the Court cites Mueller (phonetic) V. Olden Mathis (phonetic) Chemical Corporation, 404 Fed.2nd 501. The dispute here does not involve the validity of the patent but rather the contractual obligations of the parties; and since it involves contractual matters and not infringement, the Court is of the opinion that it does not have jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, will grant the motion to dismiss.
“However, Defendant has asked that this also be considered a motion for declaratory judgment and that the dismissal be with prejudice. The Court will not grant that motion and the dismissal will be without prejudice.”
Some uncertainty exists, however, as to whether a dismissal on the grounds so found would properly be for want of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b) (1) or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b) (6). The order of dismissal cites both; the majority opinion refers to neither.
*1198The complaint on its face purports to invoke exclusive jurisdiction of the federal court on matters relating to patents, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, and seeks relief under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Since, therefore, the complaint purports to state a claim under federal law, subject matter jurisdiction within the meaning of Rule 12(b) (1) would appear to exist, regardless of the actual validity of the claim, Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 83 S.Ct. 1441, 10 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963), and Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).
However, the district court found that the plaintiff, while alleging a federal statute as the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, was not in fact relying upon the statutes cited to state a claim at all, but was utilizing it merely as a basis of subject matter jurisdiction in this court. (See cited portion of District Court’s opinion, infra. As the Supreme Court stated in Hood, supra, page 682, 66 S.Ct. page 776:
“The previously carved out exceptions are that a suit may sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction. .” (emphasis added)
Although not specifically relying upon Hood, supra, it seems clear that the district court dismissed the suit on the basis of the exception stated in Hood.
The complaint also asserts jurisdiction on the basis of the Declaratory Judgment Act. However, the Act does not expand the jurisdiction of federal courts, but merely enlarges the range of remedies available in federal courts where subject matter jurisdiction already exists, e. g., a federal right or diversity of citizenship, Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 70 S.Ct. 876, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950). The scope of relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act extends only to cases “of actual controversy”, and thus the finding of absence of actual controversy would appear to justify a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6). No distinction between the two concepts appears in Goodrich-Gulf Chemicals, supra, and while that opinion speaks in terms of “jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act,” 376 F.2d p. 1018, it is clear that the finding of an absence of a justiciable controversy to which the remedy could be applied, warranted the dismissal under the facts which existed in that case. So too, in this case did the District Court determine that the facts warranted such a dismissal.
Finally, the majority opinion vacates and remands for a further evidentiary hearing “on the issue of whether an actual controversy exists between the parties requiring a declaratory judgment.” (emphasis added). I would not so limit the remand, but would leave all issues properly before the trial court open for reconsideration in the light of the evi-dentiary hearing to be held.
The complaint as filed seeks not only declaratory judgment relief, but damages and injunctive relief as well. If the evidentiary hearing satisfies the trial judge that there is no subject matter jurisdiction, within the meaning of Goodrich and Hood, supra, then dismissal of the entire complaint, under rule 12(b) (1) would be appropriate. If, on the other hand, the trial court held after hearing, that the federal claim, even though it might not ultimately be sustained, nevertheless had “substance”, and that it and the non-federal contract dispute “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact”, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1965); Lewis v. Pennington, 400 F.2d 806, 815 (6th Cir. 1968); Shaw-Henderson, Inc. v. Schneider, D.C., 335 F.Supp. 1203, Aff’d. 6th Cir., 453 F.2d 748 (1971), it would have discretion to decide whether in the view of the pending arbitration proceeding, it wished to retain or decline pendent jurisdiction. In the connection therewith it could also determine whether it *1199wished to grant declaratory relief, which is not required, as implied by the majority opinion, but is discretionary, Walker v. Felmont Oil Corp., 262 F.2d 163 (6th Cir. 1967).

. Pages 82-83 of the Appendix: “The Court: Of course, at that time they did make an offer and it was refused.”

. Page 69 of the Record : “Under the circumstances, we ask this Court to deny the motion and either proceed with the case or if the Court feels that testimony should be taken on the subject of this issue of fact, then let’s take testimony on this issue of fact. Let’s do it that way. We ask that the motion be denied.”