Court Opinion

ID: 9490106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:32:46.446086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:53.845376
License: Public Domain

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 108 F.3d 999, filed February 28, 1997. Here too, the majority sua sponte remands for the district court to consider whether it should have exercised declaratory judgment jurisdiction, despite the absence of any indication that some other forum would be more appropriate. Indeed, in this ease there was never any related litigation pending in state court and there never will be. The only question that any court has ever been asked to decide here is the indemnification issue. This, the district court has already ruled upon, so we should proceed to review that decision on the merits.
The majority states that Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995), held “that the fact that no state action was pending at the time the plaintiff filed ah action pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act is not dispositive in resolving the question whether a district court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.” Maj.Op. at 1080. However, contrary to the majority’s claim, Wilton expressly refused to so hold. As the majority recognizes earlier in its opinion, Maj.Op. at 1080, the court in Wilton emphasized that it was not attempting “to delineate the outer boundaries of [the district court’s] discretion in ... cases in which there are no parallel state proceedings.” Wilton, - U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2144. The Court in Wilton specifically noted that it was “only” passing judgment on whether “the [district [c]ourt acted within its bounds in staying this action for declaratory relief where parallel proceedings, presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state.law issues, were underway in state court.” Id. Therefore, Wilton does not support the abdication of federal jurisdiction when no state proceedings are “underway.”