T. GLENNON, INC. v. THE HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Filing
18
OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/28/2011. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
T. GLENNON, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HARTFORD CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4155 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
CHARLES JOHNSON brought an action against T. Glennon, Inc.
(“Insured”) in New Jersey state court to recover damages for
personal injuries (“Tort Action”).
Ex. A, Compl. at 1-3.)
(Dkt. entry no. 1, Rmv. Not.,
The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company
(“Insurer”) allegedly provided coverage to the Insured.
2-6.)
The Tort Action remains pending.
Insurer Br. at 2.)
(Id. at
(Dkt. entry no. 11,
Indeed, Charles Johnson has added the Insurer
as a defendant in the Tort Action.
(Id.)
THE INSURED then brought this separate action against the
Insurer in the same state court for, inter alia, a judgment
declaring that the Insurer is obligated to defend and indemnify
the Insured in the Tort Action (“Declaratory Judgment Action”).
(See Compl.)
The Insured listed, among others, Charles Johnson
as an interested party.
(Id.)
The Insurer removed the
Declaratory Judgment Action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).
(Rmv. Not.)
THE INSURED now moves to remand the Declaratory Judgment
Action and to recover an award of costs.
Notice of Mot.)
(Dkt. entry no. 4,
For the following reasons, the Court will (1)
grant the part of the motion seeking remand, and (2) deny the
part of the motion seeking to recover an award of costs.
argument is not necessary.
Oral
See L.Civ.R. 78.1(b).
THE INSURER has been added as a defendant in the Tort
Action.
The Insurer also could be named as a third-party
defendant, a cross-claim defendant, or in some other capacity.
Furthermore, a determination as to any claim in the Declaratory
Judgment Action would necessarily affect — and thus interfere
with — the Tort Action.
As a result, this Court must abstain
from adjudicating the Declaratory Judgment Action.
See Wilton v.
Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 280-90 (1995) (upholding Brillhart
v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491 (1942)).
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION (1) is, as the Court’s
shorthand reference suggests, a declaratory-judgment action
involving insurance-coverage issues, (2) concerns issues that
will be raised in the Tort Action, and (3) as the Insured
correctly points out, could be adjudicated by the same judge
overseeing the Tort Action, as both actions were initiated in the
same court.
(See dkt. entry no. 5, Insured Br. at 1-2.)
As a
result, the Declaratory Judgment Action should be remanded.
Del Suppo, Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. 07-952, 2007 WL
2
See
2345287, at *2-3 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2007) (declining jurisdiction
and remanding action where insurer removed insured’s action
seeking indemnification in underlying state court action); see
also Williams v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-4983,
2009 WL 1119502, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2009) (remanding
action concerning insurance coverage, and noting “the possibility
of interfering with the state court cases regarding the same
matter is substantial” because the conduct of certain parties
would need to be addressed in both the underlying state action
and the removed declaratory-judgment action).
THE COURT, in view of the pending Tort Action, must “promote
judicial economy by avoiding duplicative and piecemeal
litigation”.
State Auto Ins. Cos. v. Summy, 234 F.3d 131, 135
(3d Cir. 2001).
It appears that the Insurer’s desire to proceed
in federal court “has no special call on the federal forum”.
at 136.
Id.
Therefore, the Court will grant the part of the motion
seeking remand.
THE COURT, however, will deny the part of the motion seeking
to recover an award of costs.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (stating
“order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and
any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a
result of the removal”).
The Court has broad discretion over
whether to require the payment of costs.
See Mints v. Educ.
Testing Serv., 99 F.3d 1253, 1260 (3d Cir. 1996).
3
The issue of
the propriety of the removal was not entirely straightforward,
and there was an objectively reasonable basis for the removal.
FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court will issue an appropriate
order and judgment.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:
November 28, 2011
4
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?