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