Court Opinion

ID: 9412859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 20:01:55.346083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:10.567024
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0350n.06

                                          No. 22-6026

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                  FILED
                                                                                Aug 01, 2023
                                                                            DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
BRIAN BOYD,                                     )
                                                )
         Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                )         ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                )         UNITED STATES DISTRICT
v.
                                                )         COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
JOSEPH MARTINEZ, et al.                         )         DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
                                                )
         Defendants-Appellants.                 )
                                                                                   OPINION
                                                )
                                                )

Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

        CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant, Joseph Martinez, and his company TEK Holdings

Group LLC, appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss and motion for summary

judgment, as well as the district court’s partial grant of the motion for summary judgment brought

by Plaintiff, Brian Boyd, in this declaratory judgment action. For the reasons set forth below, we

AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for

summary judgment, as well as the district court’s order partially granting summary judgment to

Plaintiff.

                                      I. BACKGROUND

        A. Factual History

        This case has its origins in a failed business venture between Defendant Joseph Martinez

(“Joe”), his brother Christopher Martinez (“Chris”), and his former boss John Altergott

(“Altergott”). Chris and Joe Martinez both worked for Altergott at a company called Sayers, which
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

was partially owned by Altergott. Altergott and Chris both left Sayers and started their own

respective IT companies. This left Joe at Sayers in charge of an important account with a hospital

chain.

         Joe eventually decided to join Altergott at his new IT company, so he quit his position at

Sayers and took the hospital chain account to Altergott’s new company. This move resulted in

Sayers threatening to sue Joe and sending him a letter claiming he violated the terms of his

employment agreement. Joe retained an attorney to represent him in this dispute, Brian T. Boyd

(Plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action). Boyd took care of the matter by writing a letter to

Sayers on Joe’s behalf indicating that Joe had done nothing to violate the employment agreement,

as a result of which Sayers took no further action.

         After resolution of the Sayers dispute, Joe, Chris, and Altergott decided to enter into a joint

venture to create an IT company called 3-D Technology Group (“3D Group” or the “joint venture”)

which they would all jointly own through three separate member corporate entities.1 Boyd was

allegedly retained by Joe and Chris to represent them in forming separate corporate entities that

would hold their respective ownership shares in 3-D Technology Group. The joint venture

subsequently failed.

         In December 2018, Joe (and his corporate entity TEK)2 sued Chris, Altergott, and their

respective corporate entities (the “original lawsuit”) in Williamson County Chancery Court

alleging that Chris and Altergott wrongly excluded Joe from managing and governing 3D Group,

distributed 3D Group’s funds in an impermissible manner, and engaged in “inappropriate self

         1
          Joe’s corporate entity is called TEK Holdings Group, Chris’s corporate entity is called Ryzer
Services, and Altergott’s corporate entity is 3-D Technology Inc.
         2
          Although Joe and his corporate entity, TEK Holdings Group LLC, are both Defendants in this
action, for purposes of clarity, this opinion refers solely to Joe as the Defendant in the singular since he is
the sole member of TEK Holdings Group LLC.

                                                      2
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

dealing, embezzlement, and other violations of their fiduciary duties.” Original Compl., R. 1-1 at

Page ID #30. In January 2019, Joe and his corporate entity also filed a lawsuit in Williamson

County Circuit Court3 against Boyd (the “malpractice action”), accusing him of legal malpractice

and of breach of fiduciary duty for improperly representing both him and his brother Chris despite

the fact that they had materially adverse interests.

       On June 29, 2019, Joe, Chris, and Altergott (along with their respective corporate entities),

settled the original lawsuit and executed a settlement agreement that was intended to end all of the

litigation among the parties. This settlement agreement contained the following release provision:

       Upon execution of and subject to the terms of this Agreement, except for the
       obligations created by this Agreement and the Related Agreements, the Parties, on
       behalf of themselves, their predecessors, successors, direct and indirect parent
       companies, direct and indirect subsidiary companies, divisions, companies under
       common control with any of the foregoing, affiliates and assigns, and their past,
       present and future officers, directors, shareholders, interest holders, members,
       partners, attorneys, agents, employees, managers, representatives, assigns and
       successors in interest, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert
       with them, and each of them, hereby release, remise and forever discharge each
       other, together with their predecessors, successors, direct and indirect parent
       companies, direct and indirect subsidiary companies, divisions, companies under
       common control with any of the foregoing, affiliates and assigns and their past,
       present and future officers, directors, shareholders, interest holders, members,
       partners, attorneys, agents, employees, managers, representatives, assigns and
       successors in interest, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with
       them, and each of them, from all known and unknown charges, complaints,
       claims, grievances, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, controversies,
       damages, actions, causes of action, suits, rights, demands, costs, losses, debts,
       penalties, fees, wages, expenses (including attorneys’ fees and costs actually
       incurred) and punitive damages, of any nature whatsoever (collectively,
       “Claims”), arising prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, throughout the
       universe.

       3
         Joseph Martinez (et. al) v, Brian T, Boyd, 94CC1-2019-CV-34, Williamson County Circuit Court
Docket (2019).

                                                  3
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

Settlement Agreement, R. 11, Page ID #90–91 (emphasis added). The settlement agreement

required any disputes relating to the enforceability or interpretation of the agreement to be

mediated and litigated only in federal or state court in Davidson County, Tennessee.

         Even after the settlement agreement, the Malpractice action remained pending. Boyd avers

that he was not made immediately aware that the parties in the original lawsuit had signed a

settlement agreement.     In May 2021, Boyd amended his answers to the complaint in the

malpractice action to argue that the settlement agreement foreclosed Joe’s claims against him.4 On

January 4, 2022, the malpractice action was stayed pending mediation of the dispute between Boyd

and Joe. Mediation between the parties was ultimately unsuccessful, but the stay remained in

place.

         In February 2022, Boyd filed the instant declaratory judgment action in Davidson County

Chancery Court requesting that the court determine: (1) that Boyd is a third party beneficiary of

the settlement agreement’s release provision which bars the claims asserted in the Malpractice

Lawsuit, and (2) that the settlement agreement permits Boyd to recover attorney’s fees for pursuing

the declaratory judgment action and for defending the malpractice action after the execution of the

settlement agreement. Joe and his corporate entity removed the lawsuit to federal court on the

basis of diversity of citizenship.

         B. Procedural History

         After the declaratory judgment action was removed to federal court, Joe moved to dismiss

the action on the basis of the abstention doctrine articulated in Colorado River Water Conservation

District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Boyd filed the settlement agreement, opposed the

         4
         In November of 2021, Boyd also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the malpractice
action. Boyd later withdrew the motion for judgment on the pleadings in the state malpractice action
pending the adjudication of the federal court declaratory judgment action.

                                                  4
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

motion to dismiss, and moved for summary judgment on the basis that the settlement agreement

precluded any claims against him relating to his representation of Joe or his corporate entity in the

3-D Group joint venture. Joe opposed the motion for summary judgment and filed his own motion

for summary judgment, arguing that the settlement agreement does not contemplate the release of

the claims made in the malpractice litigation.

       The district court denied Joe’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and

granted in part Boyd’s motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion to

dismiss because it determined that Colorado River abstention was not warranted. The district court

denied Joe’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part Boyd’s motion for summary

judgment because it determined that the settlement agreement explicitly released the claims made

by Joe against Boyd in the malpractice action. The district court denied Boyd’s motion for

summary judgment with respect to his request for attorney’s fees because the settlement

agreement’s attorney’s fees provision did not apply to Boyd, since he was not a listed party in the

agreement.

       Joe and his corporate entity, TEK Holdings, timely appealed. On appeal, Joe argues that

(A) the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on Colorado River abstention

doctrine and (B) that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Boyd on the scope

of the settlement agreement, since Tennessee rules of contract interpretation require courts to

consider extrinsic evidence of intent when interpreting a contract.

                                 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

       In general, we review a district court’s abstention decisions de novo. Baskin v. Bath Twp.

Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 15 F.3d 569, 571 (6th Cir. 1994) (reviewing de novo district court’s grant

of a motion to dismiss on the basis of Colorado River abstention doctrine) (citing Heitmanis v.

                                                 5
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

Austin, 899 F.2d 521, 527 (6th Cir. 1990)). In this case, however, the action that was removed

from state court was a declaratory judgment action pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-101. We

review a district court’s decision to hear a declaratory judgment action for abuse of discretion.

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289–90 (1995). This standard of review applies even

when the declaratory judgment action was initiated in state court and then removed to federal court.

See Cardinal Health, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 29 F.4th 792, 796 (6th

Cir. 2022) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision declining to hear declaratory

judgment action removed to federal court from Ohio state court).

       This Court reviews a district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. See

Thacker v. Ethicon, Inc., 47 F.4th 451, 458 (6th Cir. 2022). Summary judgment is properly granted

when the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

                                         III. ANALYSIS

   A. Motion to Dismiss

       Joe argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss because the

Colorado River doctrine warrants abstention in this case and because Boyd lacks standing to bring

this suit.5 The Supreme Court’s decision in Colorado River articulated several factors that federal

courts must consider in deciding whether to abstain from their “virtually unflagging obligation” to

decide cases within their jurisdiction when there is a parallel state action. 424 U.S. at 817. First,

the district court must determine that the two actions are parallel, then it can consider:

       (1) whether federal or state law provides the basis for decision of the case;
       (2) whether either court has assumed jurisdiction over any res or property;
       5
         Because Joe makes the same argument with respect to standing in his motion for summary
judgment and in his opposition to Boyd’s motion for summary judgment, this opinion will address this
argument in Section B, infra.

                                                  6
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

       (3) whether the federal forum is less convenient to the parties;
       (4) avoidance of piecemeal litigation; and
       (5) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained.

Baskin, 15 F.3d at 571.

       The district court determined that the state malpractice action was not parallel to the federal

proceeding and declined to abstain pursuant to Colorado River.

       However, the Colorado River abstention doctrine framework does not apply where the

federal court action is one for a declaratory judgment. This is because federal court declaratory

judgment actions are discretionary, and the “the normal principle that federal courts should

adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial

administration.” Wilton, 515 U.S. at 288.

       To determine if a district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction was appropriate under the

Declaratory Judgment Act, this Court applies a five-factor test. Cardinal Health, Inc., 29 F.4th at

796–97 (citing Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 746 F.2d 323, 326 (6th Cir. 1984)).

This test, known in this Circuit as the Grand Trunk test, requires the Court to consider:

       (1) whether the declaratory action would settle the controversy;
       (2) whether the declaratory action would serve a useful purpose in clarifying the
       legal relations in issue;
       (3) whether the declaratory remedy is being used merely for the purpose of
       “procedural fencing” or “to provide an arena for a race for res judicata;”
       (4) whether the use of a declaratory action would increase friction between our
       federal and state courts and improperly encroach upon state jurisdiction; and
       (5) whether there is an alternative remedy which is better or more effective.

Id. at 796–97. This Court does not assign any factor any particular weight or consider the factors

equally, but instead the “essential question on review ‘is always whether a district court has taken

a good look at the issue and engaged in a reasoned analysis of whether issuing a declaration would

                                                  7
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

be useful and fair.’” Id. at 797 (quoting W. World Ins. Co. v. Hoey, 773 F.3d 755, 759 (6th Cir.

2014)).

          In this case the district court applied only the Colorado River abstention doctrine factors

and failed to consider the Grand Trunk factors. The failure of a district court to consider or analyze

any of the Grand Trunk factors can constitute reversible error under the abuse of discretion

standard. See AmSouth Bank v. Dale, 386 F.3d 763, 785 (6th Cir. 2004) (determining that district

court abused its discretion in assuming jurisdiction over declaratory action where it noted Grand

Trunk test but did not apply each factor); see also Byler v. Air Methods Corp., 823 F. App’x 356,

365 (6th Cir. 2020) (determining that district court abused its discretion in declining jurisdiction

where “[a]lthough the district court acknowledged these factors, the court did not appear to apply

them and otherwise included only three lines of analysis explaining its decision to decline

jurisdiction.”).

          In this situation, however, some of the Colorado River abstention factors and the Grand

Trunk factors are similar and both tests require the district court to consider similar principles:

“efficiency, fairness, and federalism.” Hoey, 773 F.3d at 759; cf., Romine v. Compuserve Corp.,

160 F.3d 337, 339 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that “considerations of judicial economy and federal-

state comity” in addition to “comprehensive disposition of litigation” are the underlying principles

for Colorado River abstention) (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817). We may consider in the

first instance, without remanding, whether the five Grand Trunk factors warranted the exercise of

the district court’s discretion to hear the action. See Byler, 823 F. App’x at 365 (“it is within our

discretion to weigh the Grand Trunk factors where the district court has not done so, rather than

remanding for the district court to do so in the first instance”) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mercier,

913 F.2d 273, 277 (6th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Wilton, 515 U.S. at 289–90)).

                                                   8
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

Accordingly, this Court will weigh the Grand Trunk factors and determine whether the district

court’s exercise of discretion was appropriate.

           1. Whether the declaratory action would settle the controversy

       In deciding this factor, we examine whether resolution of the declaratory judgment action

will resolve all the disputes between the parties in the underlying state court action. See Scottsdale

Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 556 (6th Cir. 2008) (determining that first factor weighed in

favor of exercise of jurisdiction where the district court’s resolution of the issue in the declaratory

judgment action regarding the scope of an insurance policy resolved all controversies between the

parties). In this case, the federal action seeks two declarations: (1) that the settlement agreement

between the original lawsuit parties releases Boyd from liability in the state malpractice action and

(2) that Boyd is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to the settlement agreement for defending the

state malpractice action and for bringing the federal suit.

       If this Court determines that the settlement agreement’s release provision applies to Boyd,

then the state malpractice action would be dismissed as barred by the settlement agreement under

principles of res judicata since the state action involves the same parties. Accordingly, the

declaratory judgment action would settle the controversy between the parties. See Byler, 823 F.

App’x at 366 (citing Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. J & L Lumber co., 373 F.3d 807, 814 (6th Cir.

2004)) (noting that where declaratory judgment action and parallel state action share the same

parties and resolution of the federal case would bar re-litigation of state issue pursuant to res

judicata, first and second Grand Trunk factors weighed in favor of exercise of jurisdiction). This

factor weighs in favor of an exercise of jurisdiction.

                                                  9
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

            2. Whether the declaratory action would serve a useful purpose in
               clarifying the legal relations in issue

        The first two Grand Trunk factors are closely related, and courts often examine them in

conjunction with one another. See e.g., Hoey, 773 F.3d at 760 (considering the first two Grand

Trunk factors together). Indeed, “it is almost always the case that if a declaratory judgment will

settle the controversy, then it will clarify the legal relations in issue.” Flowers, 513 F.3d at 557;

see also Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v. Christian Funeral Directors, Inc., 759 F. App’x 431, 438

(6th Cir. 2018) (“In general, courts tend to consider this factor with the first factor, reaching the

same conclusion for both.”).

        In this case, the issuance of the declaratory judgment action will clarify the legal relations

in issue by determining whether the settlement agreement executed by the parties to the original

lawsuit also applies to Boyd, whether the terms of the release provision in that settlement

agreement apply to the state malpractice action, and whether Joe owes Boyd any attorney’s fees

pursuant to the settlement agreement. These determinations clarify the legal relationship between

the parties and thus weigh in favor of an exercise of jurisdiction. See United Specialty Ins. Co. v.

Cole’s Place, Inc., 936 F.3d 386, 399 (6th Cir. 2019) (determining that second factor weighed in

favor of jurisdiction where the federal declaratory judgment action settled the legal relationship

between an insurer and insured under a contract, even if it did not resolve the right of all parties to

the underlying state court action).

            3. Whether the declaratory remedy is being used merely for the purpose
               of procedural fencing or to provide an arena for a race for res judicata

        This factor examines whether the party bringing the federal court declaratory judgment

action has improper motives or is filing the federal action to “start a race for res judicata.” Cardinal

Health, Inc. 29 F.4th at 797 (noting that procedural fencing “refers to ‘a range of tactics that courts

                                                  10
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

regard as unfair or unseemly’” but that if improper motive is not found, the factor is usually

weighed as neutral) (quoting Hoey, 773 F.3d at 761).

       In this case, there is no evidence of procedural fencing or other improper motives in

bringing this declaratory judgment action because the action was brought in the forum prescribed

by the settlement agreement’s forum selection clause. Boyd had no role in drafting or agreeing to

the settlement agreement’s terms and was required to file any action “to enforce, interpret or evade

the terms” of the settlement agreement “in a federal or state court in Davidson County, Tennessee.”

Settlement Agreement, R. 11, Page ID #93.

       In fact, it is Joe, as a signing party to the settlement agreement, who was aware that both

of his lawsuits were pending in Williamson County, and yet agreed to a forum selection clause

requiring any interpretation or enforcement of the settlement agreement to take place in Davidson

County. Furthermore, it is Joe who sought to invoke federal jurisdiction by removing the action

from Davidson County state court to federal court. As the district properly determined, this case

does not present the concern of “strategically duplicative litigation unilaterally orchestrated by one

side of a dispute.” Mem. Op., R. 46, Page ID #991. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. See

Cardinal Health, 29 F.4th at 798 (determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

finding third Grand Trunk factor neutral where there was no evidence of procedural fencing);

Banks Eng’g, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 21-5652, 2022 WL 203332, at *4 (6th Cir. Jan.

24, 2022) (finding third Grand Trunk factor neutral where there was no evidence of procedural

fencing because the plaintiff initially filed declaratory judgment action in state court and the

defendant removed it to federal court).

                                                 11
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

            4. Whether the use of a declaratory action would increase friction
               between our federal and state courts and improperly encroach upon
               state jurisdiction

        The fourth factor analyzes concerns about comity between the federal and state

courts. See Hoey, 773 F.3d at 761. This Circuit considers three additional sub-factors

when deciding this factor:

        (1) whether the underlying factual issues are important to an informed resolution of
        the case;
        (2) whether the state trial court is in a better position to evaluate those factual issues
        than is the federal court; and
        (3) whether there is a close nexus between underlying factual and legal issues and
        state law and/or public policy, or whether federal common or statutory law dictates
        a resolution of the declaratory judgment action.

Cardinal Health, 29 F.4th at 799 (citing Flowers, 513 F.3d at 560).

        With respect to the first sub-factor, the underlying factual issues in the state

malpractice action (whether Boyd committed malpractice) are not relevant to the

determination of whether the settlement agreement releases Boyd from liability in the

malpractice action. Accordingly, this sub-factor weighs in favor of jurisdiction. See

United Specialty Ins. Co., 936 F.3d at 400–01 (determining that fourth Grand Trunk factor

favored jurisdiction where the issues in the state court case related to the defendant’s

liability to injured victims of a shooting and where federal declaratory action focused on

separate legal question of whether insurer was required to defend the defendant in the

underlying state lawsuit pursuant to an insurance contract); see also Flowers, 513 F.3d at

561 (“Because the question of the scope of Scottsdale’s insurance policy is an issue of law.

. .and does not require factual findings by the state court, the first sub-factor supports the

district court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this case”).

                                                   12
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

        Second, this case involves an ordinary application of state contract law principles

and involves no novel question of state law nor an unusual application of factual issues that

would make the state trial court a better forum for resolving the dispute. See Hoey, 773

F.3d at 761 (noting that where the case does not raise a “novel or difficult question[] of

state law” and where the state trial court was not in a better position to evaluate the factual

issues, the case “does not raise serious concerns about federal encroachment on the state

courts, such that the district court should decline jurisdiction.”). This sub-factor weighs in

favor of resolution by the federal court.

        Third, this case is brought pursuant to diversity jurisdiction and thus does not

implicate federal substantive law. This third sub-factor weighs against an exercise of

jurisdiction because the interpretation of contracts is resolved solely by interpreting state

law. See Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 561 (noting that third sub-factor counsels against

jurisdiction where legal issue was interpretation of insurance contract in accordance with

state law).

        Given that two of these three sub-factors weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction,

the fourth Grand Trunk factor also supports the district court’s decision to exercise

jurisdiction in this action. See Northland Ins. Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 327 F.3d 448,

454 (6th Cir. 2003) (finding that fourth Grand Trunk factor weighed in favor of jurisdiction

where first two sub-factors supported jurisdiction, but third sub-factor did not because the

action was governed solely by state contract law); W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 208 F. App’x

393, 399 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting “we cannot conclude that the district court abused its

discretion when it determined that the fourth factor as a whole weighed in favor of

exercising jurisdiction, given that two out of the three sub-factors also favored an exercise

                                                  13
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

of jurisdiction by the district court.”). Accordingly, given the relative simplicity of this

contractual dispute, the balance of these three sub-factors weighs in favor of jurisdiction.

           5. Whether there is an alternative remedy which is better or more
              effective

       The alternative remedies in this case are to (1) remand the case back to Davidson County

state court or (2) stay this action pending the results of the state malpractice action in Williamson

County court. The first remedy was not requested by the Defendant. In fact, it was Joe who

removed this case to the federal court in the first instance and sought to invoke the district court’s

diversity jurisdiction. The second remedy was requested but is not a better or more effective

remedy because it would not have provided a final resolution of all the issues in this case. This is

because Boyd has also sought a declaration that he is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to the

settlement agreement for defending the malpractice action and for bringing the instant declaratory

judgment action.

       The district court noted that: “this court could stay this litigation, wait for the Malpractice

Lawsuit to reach total conclusion, and still have work to do.” Mem. Op., R. 46, Page ID #990.

Because a stay of the declaratory judgment action pending the resolution of the malpractice action

would have resulted in a delay and would not have resolved all of the claims at issue in this suit,

such an alternative would have been worse, not better. See Flowers, 513 F.3d at 562 (determining

that requiring the declaratory plaintiff to wait until the conclusion of the state proceeding and then

file an indemnity action “would not have been a superior alternative” where it would require

declaratory plaintiff to wait until the state case was resolved before it could determine its

obligations towards the defendant); see also Byler, 823 F. App’x at 367 (noting that the “plaintiffs’

option of raising preemption and other contract defenses in a future state-court action would be

                                                 14
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

clearly inferior to a federal declaratory remedy given that it would require plaintiffs to wait until

Air Methods sued to collect their fees”).            Accordingly, this factor supports an exercise of

jurisdiction.

              6. Balancing the Grand Trunk factors

        This Circuit has never indicated how the five factors should be balanced but has

emphasized that the weighing of these factors “will depend on the facts of the case.” Cardinal

Health, Inc., 29 F.4th at 801 (citing Hoey, 773 F.3d at 759). The first, second, fourth, and fifth

factors all weigh in favor of jurisdiction, while the third factor is neutral. See United Specialty Ins.

Co., 936 F.3d at 402 (determining that district court did not abuse its discretion in determining

that jurisdiction was proper where first two Grand Trunk factors supported jurisdiction, third and

fourth factors were neutral, and fifth factor weighed against exercise of jurisdiction); Prewitt, 208

F. App’x at 400 (determining that where four of the five factors weighed in favor jurisdiction,

district court did not abuse its discretion in hearing declaratory judgment action).

        Because the balance of factors supports the district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction

over this case, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

    B. Motion for Summary Judgment

        The district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Boyd’s motion for summary

judgment determined that (a) the settlement agreement’s release provision applied to Boyd since

he served as a past attorney to a party to the settlement agreement but (b) the settlement

agreement’s attorney’s fees provision applied only to the listed parties to the Agreement.6 On

appeal, Joe argues that the district erred in granting Boyd’s motion for summary judgment because:

(1) the circumstances surrounding the execution of the settlement agreement, as well as the

        6
            This latter issue has not been appealed and so will not be addressed in this opinion.

                                                       15
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

settlement agreement’s terms, do not demonstrate that Boyd should be released as a matter of law;

(2) Boyd lacked standing to bring the declaratory judgment action since he was not an intended

third-party beneficiary of the settlement agreement; and (3) Boyd engaged in impermissible claim-

splitting by filing the instant suit.

        1. Settlement agreement’s applicability to the malpractice action against Boyd

        The parties do not contest that the agreement should be interpreted in accordance with

Tennessee law on the interpretation of contracts; they disagree about whether Tennessee contract

law permits courts to consider extrinsic evidence when the contract is unambiguous. Joe claims

that the district court failed to conduct the proper analysis in determining that the settlement

agreement releases Boyd of liability from the malpractice action. Joe argues that a court is required

to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the release’s execution, even after the court

has decided that the language of the contract is clear. He claims that the district court erred by not

considering his actions in continuing to prosecute the malpractice action after the execution of the

settlement agreement as evidence that his intent in signing the settlement agreement was not to

release Boyd of any liability in the malpractice action.

        Tennessee’s rules of contract interpretation do not vary significantly from ordinary

principles of contract interpretation. When interpreting a contract, Tennessee courts seek to

“ascertain and give effect to the intent of the parties” by examining “the plain and ordinary

meaning of the written words that are contained within the four corners of the contract.” Dick

Broad. Co. of Tennessee v. Oak Ridge FM, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 653, 659 (Tenn. 2013) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted). Ascertaining the intent of the parties to a contract is a

question of law for the court. Hamblen Cnty. v. City of Morristown, 656 S.W.2d 331, 335–36

(Tenn. 1983). If a contractual provision “is clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning of the

                                                 16
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

contract controls the dispute . . . and the language used in the contract is construed using its ‘plain,

ordinary, and popular sense.’” West v. Shelby Cnty. Healthcare Corp., 459 S.W.3d 33, 42 (Tenn.

2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

        Tennessee courts employ the “rule of practical construction” when discerning the

contracting parties’ intentions, which permits courts to examine “the circumstances in which the

contract was made, and the parties’ actions in carrying out the contract.” Individual Healthcare

Specialists, Inc. v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc., 566 S.W.3d 671, 692 (Tenn. 2019)

(quotation marks and citations omitted). This rule of practical construction, however, does not

permit a court to “vary, contradict, or supplement the contractual terms in violation of the parol

evidence rule,” particularly where the agreement at issue is a fully integrated contract. Id. at 698.

        A release is a type of contract and the same rules of construction are applied to interpret a

release provision.     See e.g., Maggart, 259 S.W.3d at 704 (applying rules of contractual

interpretation to determine scope of release). The scope of a release depends on the intent of the

parties as expressed in the written contract and “in the light of all of the surrounding facts and

circumstances    under    which     the   parties   acted.”      Peatross    v.   Shelby   Cnty.,    No.

W200802385COAR3CV, 2009 WL 2922797, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2009) (quoting

Evans v. Tillett Bros. Constr. Co., Inc., 545 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Tenn.Ct.App.1976)).

        In this case, the release provision clearly applies to Boyd as a “past . . . attorney[]” to at

least two7 of the parties to the settlement agreement. Settlement Agreement, R. 11, Page ID #90–

91. The release provision also applies to the claims brought in the malpractice action, since it was

        7
          Joe admitted that Boyd represented him and his brother simultaneously but disputes whether Boyd
also represented Altergott.

                                                    17
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

pending at the time the settlement agreement was executed and since the malpractice action solely

related to Boyd’s dual representation of Joe and Chris in the context of the 3-D Group joint venture.

        In an affidavit submitted by his attorney, Ben Rose, Joe concedes that the generic release

was not wrongfully obtained and that its language is clear in its application to Boyd. Joe’s attorney

stated in the affidavit that: “the Defendants do not maintain the generic release was wrongfully

obtained or its language is unclear with regard to Mr. Boyd’s novel claim of release.” Aff. of Ben

Rose, R. 36, Page ID #923. Joe nonetheless argues that the circumstances at the time of the

execution of the settlement agreement make clear that he never intended to release Boyd from

liability in the malpractice action by signing it. He relies on his own affidavit as evidence that he

did not intend to release Boyd from liability and argues that if he had intended to release Boyd,

the settlement agreement would have included the malpractice action in the section of the

settlement agreement providing for the dismissal with prejudice for pending actions involving the

parties. Accordingly, the issue is whether Joe’s affidavit creates a genuine issue of material fact

on the intent of the parties to release Boyd in the settlement agreement.

        Although Tennessee law permits courts to consider the circumstances and facts under

which the parties acted, courts may not use that evidence to vary the clear and unambiguous terms

of a contract. See Individual Healthcare Specialists, Inc., 566 S.W.3d at 700 (determining that

trial court could not rely on testimony of pre-signing intent to “to directly contradict the plain terms

of the agreement” and that such evidence was “ineffective to alter, vary, or supplement the clear

written terms of the contract.”); Peatross, 2009 WL 2922797, at *4 (noting that in “matters of

unambiguous written instruments absent proof of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and

situations of like character, the unspoken subjective intent of a party is not relevant.”)

(quoting Malone & Hyde Food Servs. v. Parson, 642 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982)).

                                                  18
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

Here, just as in Individual Healthcare Specialists, the contract contains an integration clause and

its release provision is unambiguous, making it inappropriate to rely on any extrinsic evidence on

the subjective pre-signing intent of the parties to alter or vary the plain terms of the release

provision. Moreover, just as in Peatross, Joe’s affidavit offers only his “subjective impression”

of his intent in signing the settlement agreement and offers no “independent facts or circumstances

from which a jury could conclude that [the parties] did not intend to release” Boyd. Peatross,

2009 WL 2922797, at *4 (determining that affidavits submitted by plaintiff to prove the subjective

intent of the parties with respect to the signing of a release did not affect interpretation of release

where the plain language of the release was unambiguous regarding scope).

       In all those cases where a Tennessee court has considered extrinsic evidence in determining

the scope of a release, the party seeking to introduce that evidence has claimed that a

misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, or mistake motivated their signing of a release. See

Ewan v. Hardison L. Firm, No. W2011-00763-COA-R3CV, 2012 WL 1269148, at *7 (Tenn. Ct.

App. Apr. 16, 2012) (permitting extrinsic evidence despite clear contractual language where the

plaintiff sought to avoid enforcement of release provision on the basis that he signed release due

to misrepresentation by defendants); Marlett v. Thomason, No. M2006-00038-COA-R3CV, 2007

WL 1048950, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2007) (permitting extrinsic evidence despite clear

language in release where the defendant made false representations that affected the plaintiff’s

decision to sign release); Richland Country Club, Inc. v. CRC Equities, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 554, 558

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (permitting extrinsic evidence that did not alter or vary the terms of the

contract but showed that country club specifically rejected several prior versions of contract which

contained broad language releasing defendant from any liability arising out of construction project

in favor of language that merely indicated that country club approved the facilities constructed by

                                                  19
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

the defendants). By contrast, in this case, Joe has not claimed that his signing of the contract was

motivated by any of those circumstances.

        Moreover, the general circumstances under which the parties entered into the settlement

agreement support the plain text interpretation of the release provision. The contract’s preamble

and other provisions reveal that the parties intended to “resolve all differences between them”

related to the joint venture for the sole purpose of “making peace and avoiding litigation.”

Settlement Agreement, R. 11, Page ID 89, 91. Given that any lawsuit relating to the joint venture

(even if it was not brought by one listed Party against another) could potentially involve the taking

of discovery from a signing party,8 the circumstances reveal that the parties intended to execute a

broad release to resolve all conflict and avoid litigation related to the joint venture.

        Joe also notes that he has continued to prosecute the malpractice action even after signing

the settlement agreement, which he argues shows that he did not intend to release Boyd in signing

that Agreement, citing Kelley v. Apria Healthcare, LLC, 232 F. Supp. 3d 983, 990 (E.D. Tenn.

2017)9 for the proposition that even where a contract’s language is unambiguous, courts can

consider post-contract conduct.        While post-contract conduct of the parties can “in some

circumstances, elucidate the parties’ own interpretation of their agreement,” Individual Healthcare

Specialists, Inc., 66 S.W.3d at 700, it does not in this case because Boyd was not a party to the

settlement agreement. In those cases where Tennessee courts examine post-contract conduct, it is

between parties to a contract to assess what their course of dealing has been. Hamblen Cnty., 656

8
 In fact, Joe’s attorney has sought to take the depositions of the nominal defendants in the federal district
court action (Altergott and Chris Martinez) and their respective corporate entities “to determine those
Parties’ intent in entering into the generic release.” Ben Rose Aff., R. 36, Page ID #923.
9
 Kelly is not binding on this Court and appears to have misconstrued Tennessee case law on parol evidence.
As demonstrated above, while Tennessee courts do consider the facts and circumstances surrounding a
contract’s signing to interpret a contract’s terms, those facts and circumstances cannot modify or alter a
contract’s unambiguous terms in the absence of an exception to the parol evidence rule.

                                                     20
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

S.W.2d at 335 (Tenn. 1983) (noting that “the interpretation placed upon a contract by the parties

thereto, as shown by their acts, will be adopted by the court and that to this end not only the acts

but the declarations of the parties may be considered.”).

       Permitting Joe to alter the terms of the contract through his unilateral subsequent conduct

would negate the reliability and value of contracts and could create the potential for parties who

regret signing contracts to cast doubt on their prior intentions, as expressed in the plain language

of a contract, by breaching the contract. See Dick Broad. Co. of Tennessee, 395 S.W.3d at 672

(noting “it would be inadvisable to allow a trial court to consider a contracting party’s argument

that ‘my lawyer told me it would be okay’ as a defense to a breach of contract action where the

written agreement clearly and unambiguously supports the contrary conclusion.”); Staubach Retail

Servs.-Se., LLC v. H.G. Hill Realty Co., 160 S.W.3d 521, 525 (Tenn. 2005) (“to allow a party to a

contract to admit that the party signed the contract but to deny that the terms of the contract express

the party’s agreement would destroy the value of contracts.”).

       Accordingly, we find that the district court committed no error in analyzing the settlement

agreement and determining that the plain language of that contract released Boyd from liability in

the malpractice action.

       2. Boyd’s standing to bring the declaratory judgment action as third-party

       Joe also argues that Boyd lacked standing to bring the declaratory judgment action to

interpret the settlement agreement because he is not an intended third-party beneficiary of the

contract. Tennessee courts permit third parties to benefit from a contract they are not a party to

under certain limited circumstances. Tennessee courts examine the following three factors when

determining whether a nonparty can enforce the terms of a contract:

                                                  21
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

        (1) The parties to the contract have not otherwise agreed;
        (2) Recognition of a right to performance in the [third party] is appropriate to effectuate
        the intention of the parties; and
        (3) The terms of the contract or the circumstances surrounding performance indicate that
        either:
                (a) the performance of the promise will satisfy an obligation or discharge a duty
                owed by the promisee to the [third party]; or
                (b) the promisee intends to give the [third party] the benefit of the promised
                performance.

Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church, 509 S.W.3d 886, 899 (Tenn. 2016) (alterations in original).

        All three of these factors exist in this case. First, the contract contains no provision that

explicitly limits enforcement of the contract to the parties. In fact, the contract’s release provision

suggests the parties intended the contract to discourage any further litigation on the subject of the

joint venture, even if brought against a non-party to the agreement. Second, the contract’s express

terms evidence the parties’ intent to avoid further litigation relating to the joint venture. Permitting

Boyd to bring suit to enforce the settlement agreement’s release provision would not undermine

the contracting parties’ expressed goal of “making peace and avoiding litigation.” Settlement

Agreement, R. 11, Page ID #91.

        Finally, part (b) of the third factor is also met here since the contract’s release provision is

worded broadly to exempt from liability a broad range of individuals, including past, present, or

future attorneys that have done any work relating to the joint venture. See Peatross, 2009 WL

2922797 at *4 (determining that specific provision in contract releasing “any other person” from

liability applied to release any claims against defendants, who were not parties to release

agreement). The settlement agreement’s release provision specifically names a broad range of

individuals, evidencing the parties’ intent to give these third parties the benefit of the release

provision’s assurance that they will not be liable for any of the services they provided with respect

to the joint venture. See First Tennessee Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Thoroughbred Motor Cars, Inc., 932

                                                  22
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

S.W.2d 928, 930 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (noting that “intent to benefit may be shown if there is. . .

an expression in the contract that the contracting parties intended to benefit the third party”)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

        Accordingly, the settlement agreement’s plain terms reveal that Boyd is an intended third-

party beneficiary and is permitted to bring the instant suit requesting a declaration that the

agreement’s release provision is applicable to him.

        3. Impermissible claim splitting

        Finally, Joe argues that Boyd engaged in impermissible claim splitting by filing the

declaratory judgment action in Davidson County. Claim splitting is a variant of the doctrine of

res judicata that does not require a final judgment but does require that there be sufficient similarity

between the underlying factual circumstances such that an eventual final judgment would have

barred the second suit. See Waad v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 762 F. App’x 256, 260 (6th Cir. 2019)

(noting that the test for claim splitting examines “whether the first suit, assuming it were final,

would preclude the second suit”) (citation and quotations marks omitted). Claim splitting doctrine

stems from the Supreme Court’s instruction in Colorado River that courts should avoid duplicative

litigation. See id. (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817).

        Claim splitting, however, is inapplicable in this case because the doctrine does not apply

to claims that were not ripe at the time of the first suit. Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462

F.3d 521, 530 (6th Cir. 2006) (determining that res judicata did not bar plaintiff’s claims where

they were premised on actions occurring after she filed her first complaint and rejecting theory

that plaintiff could have amended complaint to account for ongoing alleged wrongdoings because

amending a complaint is not an obligation). The claims that Boyd asserts in the declaratory

judgment action—that the settlement agreement applied to foreclose the malpractice action— were

                                                  23
No. 22-6026, Boyd v. Martinez

not ripe at the time that Joe filed the malpractice action because the settlement agreement was not

filed until several months later. Accordingly, Boyd was not barred from bringing the declaratory

judgment action after learning of its existence and implications for releasing him from further

liability for his work on the 3-D Group joint venture.

       Furthermore, claim-splitting is also inapplicable where a party agrees that a plaintiff may

split claims. See Davis v. Sun Oil Co., 148 F.3d 606, 612 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that claim splitting

is only permissible where the parties have agreed in “terms or in effect” that the plaintiff may split

the claims). In this case, the settlement agreement’s terms mandate that any action to enforce or

interpret its terms be brought in a specific forum (Davidson County), that is different from the

forum where all the lawsuits originally brought by Boyd were initiated (Williamson County).

Accordingly, to the extent that claim splitting is at issue, Joe has, “in effect,” consented to the

claim splitting by signing the settlement agreement and agreeing to its provision requiring any

action relating to the settlement agreement to be brought in Davidson County. Id.

                                       IV. CONCLUSION

       Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order granting in part Boyd’s motion for

summary judgment and denying Joe’s motion for summary judgment.

                                                 24