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