Noetic Specialty Insurance Company v. The Law Offices of James W Talbot PLLC et al
Filing
19
ORDER denying Defendants' 11 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative Stay. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (SR)
Case 2:21-cv-01067-JCC Document 19 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 5
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
NOETIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
CASE NO. C21-1067-JCC
ORDER
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES W.
TALBOT, PLLC, et al.,
14
Defendant.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on motion of Defendants Coronus XES, Ltd.
17
(“Coronus”) and Glomad Services, Ltd. (“Glomad”) to dismiss or stay (Dkt. No. 11) Plaintiff
18
Noetic Specialty Insurance Company’s (“Noetic”) declaratory relief action (Dkt. No. 1). Having
19
thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument
20
unnecessary and DENIES the motion.
21
I.
22
BACKGROUND
This federal action arises out of an underlying state court action involving the insured,
23
James W. Talbot and the Law Offices of James W. Talbot (collectively “Talbot”). (See Dkt. 17 at
24
1–3.) The Court will summarize the alleged facts as relevant to the limited issues raised by
25
26
ORDER
C21-1067-JCC
PAGE - 1
Case 2:21-cv-01067-JCC Document 19 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 5
1
Defendants’ motion.1
2
Talbot filed suit in state court over unpaid legal fees. (Id. at 2.) On June 2, 2020, Coronus
3
and Glomad counterclaimed for legal malpractice. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5, 12.) On June 24, 2020,
4
Talbot filed a response to the counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 1–3.) A year later, following several
5
pretrial motions, the state court entered default judgment against Talbot on the counterclaim for
6
$868,003.19. (Dkt. No. 1–6.) Talbot appealed.2
7
Talbot did not notify Noetic of the counterclaim or judgment against him until June 22,
8
2021, when he sent Noetic an email seeking defense and indemnity. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10.) Nor did
9
he disclose the counterclaim on the August 20, 2020 renewal application he submitted to Noetic,
10
which included written affirmation that no professional liability claims had been made against
11
him in the past year. (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 8, 1-4, 1-5.) Upon receipt of Talbot’s email, Noetic sent him
12
a letter denying coverage due to his failure to notify them of the counterclaim as required under
13
his insurance policy (Dkt. No. 1-8). (See Dkt. No. 1-7.)
14
Talbot did have earlier coverage issued by Noetic (Dkt. No. 1 at 13), but Section VI of
15
that policy required Talbot to report the counterclaim to Noetic at the time he was served and
16
disclose it on the renewal application. (Id. at 14.)
17
Noetic filed an action in this Court seeking declaratory judgment that it has no duty to
18
defend or indemnify Talbot with respect to the counterclaims in the underlying state court action
19
(Dkt. No. 1 at 16.) Defendants Coronus and Glomad now move to dismiss the federal suit under
20
Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491 (1942), or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings
21
until the resolution of Talbot’s state court appeal. (Dkt. No. 11 at 1–2.)
22
//
23
//
24
1
25
In reviewing the motion, the Court accepts the truth of the facts alleged and draws all
reasonable inferences from those facts in a plaintiff’s favor. Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949,
956 (9th Cir. 2009).
26
2
The Court takes judicial notice of Talbot’s pending state court appeal. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
ORDER
C21-1067-JCC
PAGE - 2
Case 2:21-cv-01067-JCC Document 19 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 5
1
2
3
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, empowers federal courts, “[i]n
4
a case of actual controversy within [their] jurisdiction,” to “declare the rights and other legal
5
relations of any interested party seeking such a declaration[.]” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a). In the
6
exercise of that power, federal district courts have “unique and substantial discretion.” Wilton v.
7
Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995).
8
9
In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action, the
district court must consider whether the pending state court proceeding is a better forum.
10
Brillhart, 316 U.S. at 495. “Ordinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a
11
federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in state
12
court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties.” Id.
13
The Ninth Circuit reads Brillhart to require a three-prong consideration: the district court
14
should (1) avoid needless determination of state law issues, (2) discourage forum shopping, and
15
(3) avoid duplicative litigation. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Krieger, 181 F.3d
16
1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 1999). When a party moves for a district court to dismiss a claim for
17
declaratory relief, the court must record the basis for its decision. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dizol,
18
133 F.3d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir. 1997).
19
20
B. Application of the Brillhart Factors
1. Federal Courts Should Not Needlessly Determine Issues of State Law
21
When “parallel state proceedings involving the same issues and parties [are] pending at
22
the time the federal declaratory action is filed, there is a presumption that the entire suit should
23
be heard in state court.” Id. at 1225. However, there is no presumption in favor of abstention in
24
declaratory actions generally, nor in insurance cases specifically. Id. at 1226. In Krieger, the
25
district court granted declaratory relief to a liability insurer that it had no duty to indemnify or
26
defend the insured in an underlying tort action. 181 F.3d at 1115–16. The Ninth Circuit held that
ORDER
C21-1067-JCC
PAGE - 3
Case 2:21-cv-01067-JCC Document 19 Filed 11/18/21 Page 4 of 5
1
“[b]ecause the state court case did not include the coverage issue, and because the coverage issue
2
in the federal action was not contingent on any further state court proceedings, the district court
3
found good cause to continue to exercise its discretion.” 181 F.3d at 1119. The same is true here.
4
As Noetic notes, the insurance coverage issue before this Court is not before the state court, or
5
contingent on any state court issues. (Dkt. No. 17 at 7.) Thus, a determination of the insured’s
6
coverage is not needless.
7
While Defendants argue the issue will be moot if Talbot wins his appeal (see Dkt. Nos.
8
11 at 9, 18 at 2), Washington law does not require Noetic to wait until then to seek a
9
determination of its duties. See, e.g., Truck Ins. Exch. v. Vanport Homes, Inc., 58 P.3d 276, 282
10
(2002) (an insurer may file a declaratory judgment action to clarify its duty to defend to avoid
11
potential breach of such duty). The first factor weighs against dismissal or stay of this action.
12
13
2. Federal Courts Should Discourage Forum Shopping
The exercise of jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions “when there is a pending
14
state court case presenting the identical issue . . . encourage[s] forum shopping.” Cont’l Cas. Co.
15
v. Robsac Indus., 947 F.2d 1367, 1372–73 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Dizol,
16
133 F.3d at 1227. If the federal suit is defensive or reactive, that would justify a court’s decision
17
not to exercise jurisdiction. Id. Defendants briefly note that whether the federal case is “reactive”
18
does not depend solely on the time of filing, which here came before the initiation of any state
19
garnishment proceeding. (Dkt. No. 11 at 7, citing, e.g., Balaton Condominium, LLC v. Balaton
20
Condominium Ass’n, 2007 WL 2069861, slip op. at 4 (W.D. Wash. 2014).) But Defendants’
21
main argument is that Noetic’s counsel filing “numerous. . . declaratory judgment actions in
22
[]this Court on behalf of insurers” constitutes a “forum shopping decision.” (Dkt. No. 11 at 8.)
23
This argument is meritless and unsupported. Availing oneself of diversity jurisdiction is not in
24
itself evidence of forum shopping. This factor weighs slightly against dismissal of the action.
25
26
3. Federal Courts Should Avoid Duplicative Litigation
The exercise of jurisdiction over a “federal declaratory suit [that] is virtually the mirror
ORDER
C21-1067-JCC
PAGE - 4
Case 2:21-cv-01067-JCC Document 19 Filed 11/18/21 Page 5 of 5
1
image of the state suit” violates the Brillhart principle of avoiding duplicative litigation. Robsac,
2
947 F.2d at 1373. The declaratory action and state suit are mirror images if “[a]ll of the issues
3
presented by the declaratory judgment action could be resolved by the state court.” Id. Exercising
4
jurisdiction over such actions “waste[s] judicial resources in violation of the third Brillhart
5
factor.” Id. Here, as previously discussed, the issues in the federal action are distinct from those
6
before the state court. The federal action is, therefore, not duplicative litigation. The third factor
7
supports denying Defendants’ request for a stay and retaining jurisdiction over this action.3
8
9
10
As such, application of the Brillhart factors provides that dismissal or a stay of the
declaratory judgment action is unwarranted.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay (Dkt.
11
12
CONCLUSION
No. 11) is DENIED.
13
DATED this 18th day of November 2021.
16
A
17
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Defendants raise two additional considerations, both without merit. They argue Noetic would
not be prejudiced by defending Talbot because it retains reimbursement rights. (Dkt. No. 18 at
1.) But the parties agree that Noetic has thus far not defended Talbot in the underlying action.
(Dkt. Nos. 17 at 12, 18 at 2.) If anything, this points to the urgency in determining if its failure to
do so breaches its obligations to its insured. Similarly, the Court rejects their assertion that the
prejudice to Defendants of fighting a “two front war” warrants dismissal or a stay. (Dkt. No. 11
at 9.)
ORDER
C21-1067-JCC
PAGE - 5
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?