Brinker International Payroll Company, L.P. v. Tower Credit, Inc.

Filing 13

RULING: As this action was filed in a clear attempt to obtain a declaratory judgment serving as a defense to the state court garnishment, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss due to Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/15/2017. (EDC)

Case 3:16-cv-00772-SDD-RLB Document 13

05/16/17 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL
COMPANY, L.P.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

16-772-SDD-RLB

TOWER CREDIT, INC.

RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss due to Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)1 filed by Defendant, Tower Credit, Inc.
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff, Brinker International Payroll Company, L.P. (“Plaintiff”), has filed
an Opposition2 to the motion. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be granted.
I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 15, 2015, Defendant obtained a judgment against Alisia Thornton

(“Thornton”) in Baton Rouge City Court.3 After Thornton failed to satisfy the judgment,
Defendant filed a garnishment action seeking to satisfy the judgment against Thornton’s
income. The garnishment was served on Thornton’s employer, Plaintiff herein, who filed
an answer to the garnishment interrogatories which included a statement that Thornton
earns $2.13 plus tips as a waitress. The Baton Rouge City Court rendered a judgment

1

Rec. Doc. No. 5.
Rec. Doc. No. 9.
3
“Tower Credit, Inc. v. Alisia Thornton,” 14-08025-E.
2

38984 
Page 1 of 6 

Case 3:16-cv-00772-SDD-RLB Document 13

05/16/17 Page 2 of 6

of garnishment ordering Plaintiff to place the matter in line for payment to the Baton
Rouge City Constable.
Defendant claims that Plaintiff has submitted no payment pursuant to the
garnishment order. Telephone communications between the parties allegedly confirmed
that Plaintiff believes Thornton’s tips are not to be included in the calculation for the
amount to be withheld for garnishment. Prior to reaching a resolution on this issue,
Plaintiff filed the current suit under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act4 seeking a
declaratory judgment that, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)5 and the
Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”),6 Thornton’s tips are not to be calculated in
the garnishment amount.
Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that no
federal question exists in this case. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the
interpretation of federal statutes is clearly a federal question appropriate for this Court.
II.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
The Declaratory Judgment Act states: “In a case of actual controversy within its

jurisdiction, ... any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading,
may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such
declaration.”7 Unlike other kinds of cases, over which the district courts have a “virtually
unflagging obligation” to exercise their jurisdiction notwithstanding that there is a pending
state court action involving the very same issues,8 the Declaratory Judgment Act “has

4

28 U.S.C. § 2201.
29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
6
15 U.S.C. § 1671.
7
28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
8
See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47
5

38984 
Page 2 of 6 

Case 3:16-cv-00772-SDD-RLB Document 13

05/16/17 Page 3 of 6

been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding
whether to declare the rights of litigants.”9 In Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Company of
America, the Supreme Court recognized district courts' discretion to dismiss a
declaratory judgment action when a parallel suit not governed by federal law and
presenting the same issues is pending in state court, holding that it would be
“uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory
judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issues
... between the same parties.”10
In deciding whether to exercise this discretion, the ultimate issue for the Court to
decide is “whether the questions in controversy between the parties to the federal suit
... can better be settled in the proceeding pending in state court.”11 In the Fifth Circuit,
this decision involves three questions: “(1) is it justiciable; (2) does the court have the
authority to grant such relief; and (3) should it exercise its discretion to decide the action
based on the factors stated in St Paul Insurance Co. v. Trejo, 39 F.3d 585 (5th
Cir.1994).”12
In Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,13 the United States Supreme Court explained how
district courts should use discretion to abstain from entertaining a declaratory judgment
action:

L.Ed.2d 483 (1976).
9
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995). See also id. at
288, 115 S.Ct. 2137 (stating that “[i]n the declaratory judgment context, the normal principle that federal
courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise
judicial administration”).
10
316 U.S. 491, 495, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942).
11
Id., 316 U.S. at 495.
12
AXA Re Property & Casualty ins. Co. v. Day, 162 Fed.Appx. 316, 319 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Orix Credit
Alliance, Inc. v. Wolfe, 212 F.3d 891 (5th Cir. 2000)).
13
515 U.S. 277, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995).

38984 
Page 3 of 6 

Case 3:16-cv-00772-SDD-RLB Document 13

05/16/17 Page 4 of 6

[I]n deciding whether to enter a stay, a district court should examine the
scope of the pending state court proceeding and the nature of defenses
open there. This inquiry, in turn, entails consideration of whether the claims
of all parties in interest can satisfactorily be adjudicated in that proceeding,
whether necessary parties have been joined, whether such parties are
amenable to process in that proceeding. 515 U.S. at 283, 115 S.Ct. 2137
(internal citations omitted). The Supreme Court reasoned that when another
suit “involving the same parties and presenting opportunity for ventilation of
the same state law issues is pending in state court,” a court's consideration
of the declaratory judgment action may constitute “gratuitous interference.”
Id.
The United States Supreme Court has held that “[t]he presence of a substantial
federal question must be apparent without the aid of the answer or the petition for
removal.”14 “A federal court cannot take jurisdiction of a case as one arising under federal
law if the federal issue will be raised only as a defense to the state law claim.”15
In the present case, a state court judgment of garnishment has already been
entered against Thornton, and Plaintiff has been ordered to comply with those
procedures.

A similar issue was addressed in Taylor v. Taylor,16 where a plaintiff

attempted to remove a state court garnishment proceeding to federal court asserting an
infringement of her constitutional rights. The Taylor court noted: “The Court notes that
this district would be an inappropriate forum for removal of the original state court
judgment.”17 The court also noted: “The alleged federal unconstitutionality of the state
court and bankruptcy judgments is being raised by Ursula Taylor as a defense. This is
not an adequate jurisdictional basis for a removed action. Wright, Miller & Cooper, 14B

14

Chuska Energy Company v. Mobil Exploration & Producing North America, Inc., 854 F.2d 727, 730, citing
Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97-98, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936).
15
Id., citing Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908).
16
No. CIV. A. 01-1886, 2001 WL 1491026 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2001).
17
Id. at *3, fn. 3.

38984 
Page 4 of 6 

Case 3:16-cv-00772-SDD-RLB Document 13

05/16/17 Page 5 of 6

Federal Practice & Procedure § 3722 (West).”18 The same is true in the present case as
Plaintiff is attempting to obtain a declaratory judgment here to be used as a defense in
the state court garnishment proceedings.
Further, the Court is not persuaded by the argument that only a federal court is
able to interpret federal statutes. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has held:
State courts are routinely required to adjudicate suits in which there are
related issues requiring the construction of federal statutes and the
Constitution. There is no danger of erroneous or inconsistent construction
each time a state court adjudicates those questions in common law or state
statutory actions. That Congress has legislated in a specific area, without
more, does not empower a federal court to adjudicate matters requiring an
interpretation of that legislation. Murray v. Murray, 621 F.2d 103, 107 (5th
Cir. 1980).19
Considering all of the factors presented above and the controlling jurisprudence
on this issue, the Court finds that exercising federal question jurisdiction over this
declaratory judgment action would be inappropriate, and the Court is vested with broad
discretion to decline such exercise of jurisdiction.

18
19

Id. at *3, fn. 4.
Chuska, 854 F.2d at 730.

38984 
Page 5 of 6 

Case 3:16-cv-00772-SDD-RLB Document 13

III.

05/16/17 Page 6 of 6

CONCLUSION
As this action was filed in a clear attempt to obtain a declaratory judgment serving

as a defense to the state court garnishment, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction
under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction20 is GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 15, 2017. 

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

20

Rec. Doc. No. 5.

38984 
Page 6 of 6