Scottsdale Indemnity Company v. Maury Burns et al
(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
CV 18-0196 FMO (FFMx)
Scottsdale Indemnity Company v. Maury Burns, et al.
Present: The Honorable
February 8, 2018
Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
(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.
Initials of Preparer
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?