Marine v. Blanchard

Full title: TAIRA LYNN MARINE, INC. v. RAYMOND BLANCHARD

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Oct 12, 2000

Civil Action No. 00-2161 Section R (4) (E.D. La. Oct. 12, 2000)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 00-2161 Section R (4).

October 12, 2000.

ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, U.S. District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant Raymond Blanchard's unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff Taira Lynn Marine's motion for declaratory judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendant's motion.

I. Background

Raymond Blanchard alleges that he suffered back and neck injuries aboard the M/V MR. CUZ on May 21, 2000 when a "massive" wake created by a Norwegian cruise liner knocked him about his cabin. Anticipating Blanchard's claims for damages, Taira Lynn Marine filed a complaint on July 21, 2000 for declaratory judgment that it is not liable for payment of maintenance and cure and a motion to compel physical examination. On August 1, 2000, Blanchard filed suit against Taira Lynn Marine in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming compensation under the Jones Act and general maritime law for the injuries that he allegedly sustained while aboard the M/V MR. CUZ.

II. Discussion

The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, does not confer jurisdiction. Rather, it is "a procedural device designed to provide a new remedy to the federal court arsenal." Mission Ins. Co. v. Puritan Fashions Corp., 706 F.2d 599, 601 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239-40, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-64 (1937)). A district court, however, is "not required to provide declaratory judgment relief, and it is a matter for the district court's sound discretion whether to decide a declaratory judgment action." Id. (citing Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173 (1942)). In exercising that discretion, a

court may consider a variety of factors in determining whether to decide a declaratory judgment suit. For example, declaratory judgment relief may be denied because of a pending state court proceeding in which the matters in controversy between the parties may be fully litigated, because the declaratory complaint was filed in anticipation of another suit and is being used for the purpose of forum shopping, because of possible inequities in permitting the plaintiff to gain precedence in time and forum, or because of inconvenience to the parties or the witness.

Rowan Cos. v. Griffin, 876 F.2d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The Fifth Circuit further noted that another important factor to consider is whether a defendant in a declaratory judgment action subsequently filed a claim for maintenance and cure in state court. See id. n. 3. See also Rowan Cos. v. Childers, 1991 WL 175587, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 23, 1991).

Here, Blanchard filed his Texas state court action six weeks after Taira Lynn Marine filed this action for declaratory relief. In that suit, Blanchard presented claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law for damages and for maintenance and cure. All of the claims that are involved in this declaratory judgment suit, and more, will be resolved in that state proceeding. As complete adjudication of all of the parties' claims can occur in the Texas state court proceeding, the Court finds that to be a controlling factor and declines to hear this declaratory judgment action.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant Raymond Blanchard's motion to dismiss plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment.