Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Fearless Fighters Paint Ball Games, LLC et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 24 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant S. S., Defendant G.C., Defendant B.C., Defendant Fearless Fighters Paint Ball Games, LLC motion is DENIED.. Signed by Honorable John A. Ross on 1/23/12. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE CO.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FEARLESS FIGHTERS PAINT BALL
GAMES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-CV-1236-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24].
The Motion has been fully briefed and is ready for disposition. For the following reasons, the
Motion will be denied.
Background
This is a declaratory judgment action brought by Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity
Insurance Company (“Philadelphia Indemnity”) seeking a determination of the rights and
liabilities of the parties herein, and specifically whether it is obligated to defend or indemnify
Defendant Fearless Fighters Paint Ball Games, LLC against the claims asserted against it in an
underlying case by Defendants G.C., S.S., and B.C. In their joint motion to dismiss, Defendants
argue the Court should decline jurisdiction over the instant action in favor of a pending state
court action for equitable garnishment which raises the same issues.
Discussion
District courts have discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction when a parallel
state action is pending under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Only upon a showing of “exceptional
circumstances,” however, should a district court exercise that discretion to dismiss a declaratory

judgment action because of a similar action pending in state court in which the controversy
between the parties can be resolved. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 21
F.3d 259, 261 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,
424 U.S. 800 (1976) and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1
(1983)). The Colorado River and Moses H. Cone cases set forth six factors to be considered
when a district court is called upon to decline it jurisdiction when a parallel state action is
pending:
(1) whether there is a res over which one court has established jurisdiction, (2) the
inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) whether maintaining separate actions may
result in piecemeal litigation, unless the relevant law would require piecemeal
litigation and the federal court issue is easily severed, (4) which case has
priority—not necessarily which case was filed first but a greater emphasis on the
relative progress made in the cases, (5) whether state or federal law controls,
especially favoring the exercise of jurisdiction where federal law controls, and (6)
the adequacy of the state forum to protect the federal plaintiff's rights.
U.S. Fidelity, 21 F.3d at 263 (citing Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Simon, 917 F.2d 1144,
1148 (8th Cir. 1990).
Having considered Defendants’ Motion in light of the relevant factors, the Court finds no
exceptional circumstances warranting abstention and/or dismissal. The instant action involves a
single insurer, no overlapping coverage, no issues of personal jurisdiction, and no genuinely
difficult question of state law or great public interest. See U.S. Fidelity, 21 F.3d at 263.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is
DENIED.
________________________________
JOHN A ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2012

2