Scottsdale Indemnity Company v. Maury Burns et al

Filing 11

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/15/2018. (vdr)

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

CV 18-0196 FMO (FFMx)

Title

Scottsdale Indemnity Company v. Maury Burns, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 8, 2018

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Further Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal or Stay

On January 9, 2018, Scottsdale Indemnity Company (“plaintiff” or “Scottsdale”) filed a
Complaint (“Complaint”) in this court seeking declaratory relief and rescission against Maury
Burns, Planaria J. Price, William J. Heffernan, 4PM LLC, Maureen Kelly Pearson, individually and
as guardian ad litem for Sullivan Morris Pearson, a minor, and Brandon Jeremy Pearson. (See
Dkt. 1, Complaint.)
Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), a district court may decline to
entertain a declaratory judgment action even if the court has subject matter jurisdiction. See
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2143 (1995) (“a district court is
authorized, in the sound exercise of its discretion, to stay or dismiss an action seeking a
declaratory judgment[.]”); Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 494, 62 S.Ct.1173,
1175 (1942) (“Although the District Court had jurisdiction of the suit under the Federal Declaratory
Judgments Act . . . it was under no compulsion to exercise that jurisdiction.”). In addition, the court
has broad discretion to dismiss or stay a declaratory relief claim, but that discretion is not
unfettered. See Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
Accordingly, the court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff to show cause in writing on or
before February 15, 2018, why this action should not be dismissed or stayed. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78(b), the court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral
argument. Failure to file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause may result in the action
being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the orders of the court,
pursuant to Local Rule 41.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 1 of 1