Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company v. Carlos Yard Service, Inc. et al
Filing
55
ORDER: Defendants' motions to stay (#s 27 -2, 31 -2, 33 -2, 36 -2) are GRANTED. Defendants' alternative motions to dismiss (#s 27 -1, 31 -1, 33 -1, 36 -1) are DENIED as moot. See Order for details. Signed on 3/14/2013 by Magistrate Judge John Jelderks. (jtj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS CASUALTY )
COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CARLOS YARD SERVICE INC.;
)
CARLOS YARD SERVICES, INC., dba
)
CARLOS TRUCKING; CARLOS CEH;
)
SERGIO IXMATLAHUA-COCOTLE;
)
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ-VEGA;
)
CELSO RODRIGUEZ; GOMEZ
)
BONIFACIO; ANGELES CEH; PABLO )
JAMINEZ CARRASCO; HONORIO
)
TELLEZ-CHONCOHUA; FLAVIO
)
ALMONTE-CORNEJO; ADAN
)
TELLEZ-CHONCOHUA; SANTIAGO,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
)
ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Intervenor/Plaintiff, )
____________________________________)
ORDER – 1
Civil No. 3:12-cv-01299-JE
ORDER
JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge:
Defendants Pablo Jimenez Carrasco, the Estate of Valente Joaquin Ramirez,
Honorio Tellez, Adan Tellez, Celso Gomez, Santiago Ambrocio Jeronimo, Francisco Hernandez
Vega, and Flavio Almontes Cornejo ("Defendants") move to stay or dismiss or the current
declaratory judgment action pending resolution of the state court matters involving the above
named parties. The parties have requested oral argument. The court, having carefully reviewed
the well written memoranda submitted by the parties, finds that oral argument is not necessary to
resolve the motion. See L.R. 7-1(d)(1).
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions to stay are granted and therefore the
motions to dismiss are moot.
Background
This insurance coverage action arises from a November 1, 2010 motor vehicle crash in
which the Defendants were passengers en route to their work site.
Between July and October 2012, the various defendants filed a total of four complaints in
the Multnomah County Circuit Court for the State of Oregon against Carlos Trucking and its
president, Carlos Ceh; the driver of the vehicle, Sergio Cocotle Ixmatlahua; and three insurers,
Artisan, Northland and Plaintiff Illinois National.
In January 2013, Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Kelly Skye ordered that the
four state court cases pending be consolidated. Defendants assert that all claims by all the
injured passengers of the November 2010 crash are now consolidated into one proceeding in
state court, that all parties have filed appearances and that discovery has been proceeding.
Artisan filed its complaint for declaratory relief in the Federal District Court for the
District of Oregon on July 18, 2012. Plaintiff Illinois intervened on November 13, 2012 and
ORDER – 2
subsequently Artisan voluntarily dismissed all of its claims in the present action. Insurer
Northland has also filed a separate declaratory action in this court. On January 23, 2013, Judge
Michael Mosman ordered a stay of the Northland case pending resolution of the state court
matters.
Discussion
Defendants argue that the court should stay or dismiss this action because the coverage
issues raised by Plaintiff are already being adjudicated in state court. Plaintiff Illinois does not
disagree that the coverage issues requiring resolution are the same in the state and federal cases
but argues that because the federal case was filed first, this court should proceed with
adjudicating the declaratory judgment action.
Federal district courts have discretion to stay or dismiss an action seeking a declaratory
judgment. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995). In ascertaining whether a stay or
dismissal is appropriate, the court considers a number of factors, including whether another
action is pending in state court that presents the same issues between the same parties. Brilllhart
v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 495 (1942). The court should also “avoid needless
determination of state law issues . . . and it should avoid duplicative litigation in state and federal
court.” Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc).
After considering all of the factors involved here, I am satisfied that the issues between
the parties can be better settled in the proceedings pending in the state court. I agree with
Defendants that issues of state law and state policy are closely involved in determining liability
and coverage questions, especially under personal injury protection (“PIP”) and uninsured
motorist (“UIM”) insurance laws. I am also in agreement that the state court is well suited to
deal with these significant issues.
ORDER – 3
However, although it appears that all issues will likely resolve in state court, a stay is
more appropriate than a dismissal in the event there is not a complete resolution at the state court
level of the issues raised herein.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motions to stay (#s 27-2, 31-2, 33-2, 36-2) are GRANTED. Defendants’
alternative motions to dismiss (#s 27-1, 31-1, 33-1, 36-1) are DENIED as moot.
DATED this 14th day of March, 2013.
/s/ John Jelderks
John Jelderks
U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER – 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?