Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Anthony Jason Ballina et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re Dismissal of Declaratory ReliefAction by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: This is an action for declaratory relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act....The Court orders the parties to show cause in writing by November 29, 2011 why this Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/29/2011.) (lw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-9146 PSG (CWx)

Title

Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co. V. Anthony Jason Ballina, et al.

Present:

Date

November 8, 2011

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present
Proceedings:

n/a
Tape No.

Not Present

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re Dismissal of Declaratory Relief
Action

This is an action for declaratory relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act
(“Act”), which provides in part:
In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of
the United States, upon filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare
the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such
declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.
28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (emphasis added). As is evident from the word “may,” the Act does not
grant litigants an absolute right to a legal determination. See United States v. Washington, 759
F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1985). Rather, the decision to grant declaratory relief rests within a
district court’s discretion. Id.
The district court considers the following factors in determining whether to entertain a
suit for declaratory relief: (1) avoidance of “needless determination of state law issues,” forum
shopping, and duplicative or piecemeal litigation;1 (2) the existence of a parallel, pending statecourt action that involves the same legal issues as the federal action;2 (3) whether the declaratory
action (a) will “settle all aspects of the controversy,” (b) will clarify the legal relations at issue,
(c) is being sought only for purposes of procedural fencing or to obtain a res judicata advantage,
1
2

Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 1998).
Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co., 931 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1991).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-9146 PSG (CWx)

Title

Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co. V. Anthony Jason Ballina, et al.

Date

November 8, 2011

or (d) will result in entanglement between the federal and state court systems; (4) whether there
exist alternative remedies that are convenient for the parties;3 and (5) the promotion of sound
public policy.4
The Court orders the parties to show cause in writing by November 29, 2011 why this
Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dizol, 133 F.3d at 1225 n.5.
Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Karussos, 65 F.3d 796, 798-99 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting
important policy considerations, such as “avoiding rendering opinions based on purely
hypothetical factual scenarios, discouraging forum shopping, encouraging parties to pursue the
most appropriate remedy for their grievance, preserving precious judicial resources, and
promoting comity”).
3
4

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2