Travelers Commercial Insurance Company v. Marshalsteevan
Filing
32
ORDER denying 23 Motion to Dismiss or Stay. Signed by Judge P. Casey Pitts on 3/27/2024. (nmc, COURT USER) (Filed on 3/27/2024)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 23-cv-05088-PCP
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS OR STAY
Re: Dkt. No. 23
RAJITHA MARSHALSTEEVAN,
Defendant.
12
13
Plaintiff Travelers Commercial Insurance Company has brought this breach of contract
14
action against defendant Rajitha Marshalsteevan seeking to enforce the parties’ purported
15
agreement to settle Ms. Marshalsteevan’s claims after she was seriously injured by a driver
16
insured by Travelers. Ms. Marshalsteevan has moved to dismiss or stay this case out of deference
17
to a pending state court suit between the parties under Colorado River Water Conservation
18
District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). The motion is denied and this case may proceed.
19
When there are concurrent actions in state and federal court, “the rule is that the pendency
20
of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal
21
court.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817 (cleaned up). Federal courts have a “virtually unflagging
22
obligation … to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” Id. In “rare cases,” though, “the presence of
23
a concurrent state proceeding permit[s] the district court to dismiss a concurrent federal suit for
24
reasons of wise judicial administration.” R.R. Street & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966,
25
977–78 (9th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up) (citing Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818).
26
“To decide whether a particular case presents the exceptional circumstances that warrant a
27
Colorado River stay or dismissal, the district court must carefully consider both the obligation to
28
exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counseling against that exercise.” R.R. Street,
1
656 F.3d at 978 (cleaned up). These factors are: “(1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over
2
any property at stake; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desire to avoid piecemeal
3
litigation; (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law or state
4
law provides the rule of decision on the merits; (6) whether the state court proceedings can
5
adequately protect the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to avoid forum shopping; and
6
(8) whether the state court proceedings will resolve all issues before the federal court.” Id. at 978–
7
79. Both parties recognize that the final factor can be dispositive. “[A] district court may enter a
8
Colorado River stay order only if it has full confidence that the parallel state proceeding will end
9
the litigation.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1993).
The Court takes judicial notice of Ms. Marshalsteevan’s state court complaint against
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
11
Travelers’ insured, which alleges general negligence and seeks damages for the injuries she
12
suffered. See Complaint, Marshalsteevan v. Le, Dkt. No. 23-3. Ms. Marshalsteevan argues in her
13
motion that insured’s affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction will “dispense with”
14
Travelers’s breach of contract claim here. Travelers contends that it will not, arguing that accord
15
and satisfaction is distinct from settlement, that Travelers is not a party in the state action, and that
16
the state action could not resolve other aspects of its breach of contract claim in this action
17
including breach, causation, and damages.
Ultimately, Ms. Marshalsteevan has not demonstrated that the state proceedings will end
18
19
this litigation. Even if the parties’ alleged settlement may be relevant as a defense in the state case,
20
Travelers seeks remedies that go beyond what the insured might obtain by a successful defense in
21
the state case. Because the Court does not have full confidence that this case will be resolved by
22
the state action, a dismissal or stay is not warranted. Ms. Marshalsteevan’s motion is therefore
23
denied.
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2024
27
P. Casey Pitts
United States District Judge
28
2
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?