Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00056-IEG-AJB

Document 14-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 John H. Gomez (171485) James S. Iagmin (191300) 2 The Gomez Law Firm 625 Broadway, Suite 600 3 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 237-3490/Fax: (619) 237-3496 4 Attorneys for Defendants Ryan Baldwin & Jayce Baldwin 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08cv0056 IEG (AJB) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RYAN BALDWIN AND JAYCE BALDWIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY FRCP 12(b)(1, 3, and 6) Judge: Courtroom: Date: Time: Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez 1 June 16, 2008 10:30 a.m.

10 EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 JAMES A. NGUYEN; BINH HUU 14 NGUYEN; DIANE HOA NGUYEN; RYAN BALDWIN; JAYCE BALDWIN; and DOES 15 1 through 200, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Ryan Baldwin and Jayce Baldwin move this Court to dismiss, or in the

24 alternative stay, the above captioned case because it is duplicative of pending state court 25 litigation. Ryan Baldwin and Jayce Baldwin have sued, among others, defendants James A. 26 Nguyen, Binh Huu Nguyen, and Diane Hoa Nguyen in the Superior Court of California, in and 27 for the County of San Diego (case no. 37-2007-00081572-CU-PO-CTL, filed November 13, 28 2007), for injuries and damages suffered when Ryan Baldwin was shot. The Baldwins allege
The Gomez Law Firm Attorneys at Law

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of the 08cv0056 IEG (AJB) Baldwin Defendants Motion for Dismissal or Stay page 1

Case 3:08-cv-00056-IEG-AJB

Document 14-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 1 that James Nguyen shot Ryan Baldwin . The Baldwins further allege that Binh Huu Nguyen

2 and Diane Hoa Nguyen are the parents of James Nguyen and were negligent in their failure 3 to recognize their sons violent propensities and to supervise and control him. The Nguyens 4 have appeared, and are actively participating, in the state court litigation. 5 The Baldwins would suffer undue prejudice, in the form of costly, duplicative litigation,

6 if plaintiff Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Companys pending Declaratory Relief action is 7 permitted to proceed. The Nguyens counsel in the state court action has propounded

8 voluminous written discovery on the Baldwins, including Form Interrogatories, Contention 9 Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and Requests for Production of Documents. (Iagmin 10 Declaration, ¶ 3; Notice of Lodgment, Ex. 2.) The Nguyens counsel in the state court action 11 has also noticed the Baldwins depositions. (Iagmin Declaration, ¶ 4; Notice of Lodgment, Ex. 12 3.) It is clear that the Nguyens are aggressively defending themselves in the pending state 13 court action. It has become equally clear that the issues and discovery in this federal court 14 action will in many respects duplicate the state court litigation. For these reasons,

15 defendants Ryan Baldwin and Jayce Baldwin respectfully request that this Court dismiss or 16 stay this federal court pending the resolution of the state court case. 17 18 19 20

II. THIS FEDERAL COURT ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED, OR STAYED, PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE RELATED STATE COURT ACTION.
The Baldwin defendants bring this motion based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

21 sections 12(b)(1, 3 and 6.) As described below, the exercise of jurisdiction over this matter is 22 improper because there is litigation pending in the state court which involves the same legal 23 and factual issues. 24 The United States Supreme Court has warned against a declaratory relief action in

25 federal court interfering with a state court action involving the same issues and parties. In 26 Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491, 494-495 (1942), the U.S. Supreme 27
1

28 association with, and for the benefit of, a street gang. (Iagmin Dec., ¶ 2; Notice of Lodgement Ex. 1.)
The Gomez Law Firm Attorneys at Law

James Nguyen, who was 17 years old at the time of the crime, pled guilty to shooting Ryan Baldwin in

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of the 08cv0056 IEG (AJB) Baldwin Defendants Motion for Dismissal or Stay page 2

Case 3:08-cv-00056-IEG-AJB

Document 14-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 Court advised: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The motion rested upon the claim that since another proceeding was pending in a state court in which all the matters in controversy between the parties could be fully adjudicated, a declaratory judgment in the federal court was unwarranted. The correctness of this claim was certainly relevant in determining whether the District Court should assume jurisdiction and proceed to determine the rights of the parties. Ordinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties. Gratuitous interference with the orderly and comprehensive disposition of a state court litigation should be avoided.

9 Where pending state court litigation involves the same factual and legal issues, as well as a 10 dispute between the same parties, the federal court action should be dismissed or stayed in 11 favor of the state court action. 12 The Ninth Circuit has adopted the United States Supreme Courts test, set forth in

13 Brillhart, supra, to determine whether it is appropriate to enjoin a federal declaratory relief 14 action in favor of pending state court litigation. In Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol,
rd th 15 133 F. 3 1220, 1225 (9 Cir., 1998), the court held:

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

The Brillhart factors remain the philosophic touchstone for the district court. The district court should avoid needless determination of state law issues; it should discourage litigants from filing declaratory actions as a means of forum shopping; and it should avoid duplicative litigation. ... Robsac, 947 F. 2nd at 1371-73. If there are parallel state proceedings involving the same issues and parties pending at the time the federal declaratory action is filed, there is a presumption that the entire suit should be heard in state court. Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co., 931 F. 2nd 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir., 1991). The pendency of a state court action does not, of itself, require a district court to refuse federal declaratory relief. Id. at 1367. Nonetheless, federal courts should generally decline to entertain reactive declaratory actions. The Ninth Circuit stated also that, "the Brillhart factors are not

24 (Emphasis added.)

25 exhaustive." The District Court may consider, "whether the declaratory relief action is being 26 sought for merely the purposes of procedural fencing or to obtain a ,,res judicata advantage; 27 or whether the use of a declaratory action will result in entanglement between the federal and 28 state court systems."
The Gomez Law Firm Attorneys at Law

Government Employees Ins. Co., supra, 133 F. 3rd 1220, 1225

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of the 08cv0056 IEG (AJB) Baldwin Defendants Motion for Dismissal or Stay page 3

Case 3:08-cv-00056-IEG-AJB

Document 14-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 (footnote 5). 2 The Brillhart factors, applied to the facts of this case, strongly favor dismissal, or stay, Two critical issues in the state court involve factual

3 of the pending federal litigation.

4 determinations whether Binh Huu Nguyen and Diane Hoa Nguyen knew or should have know 5 of their sons dangerous propensities and whether they took reasonable steps to supervise 6 and control him. The parties are presently litigating these issues in state court. For example, 7 the Nguyens counsel has propounded numerous contention interrogatories directed at this 8 issue. The Nguyens counsel has also noticed the Baldwins depositions. Forcing the

9 Baldwins to participate in this federal action would effectively subject them to duplicative 10 litigation, including the substantial burdens and associated costs, on these issues. 11 Proceeding with this federal court action would also create the risk of a res judicata

12 effect on the issue of negligent supervision, an important determination which should be 13 made in the state court action. The Nguyens, and their insurer, should not be allowed to 14 shop for a forum which they believe will resolve this issue more favorably than they may 15 expect in the state court. Moreover, given the differences in federal and state court litigation, 16 there is a risk that the Baldwins could be subjected to inconsistent findings in the state and 17 federal court litigation. The risk of this type of state and federal court entanglement should 18 not be permitted. The Baldwins deserve to have the important issues in their state court case 19 resolved in state court, where the balance of the defendants, including the other defendants 20 involved in the shooting, are litigating this cases factual and legal issues. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
The Gomez Law Firm Attorneys at Law

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of the 08cv0056 IEG (AJB) Baldwin Defendants Motion for Dismissal or Stay page 4

Case 3:08-cv-00056-IEG-AJB

Document 14-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3

III. CONCLUSION
This federal court declaratory relief action involves the same factual and legal issues

4 currently being litigated in the pending state court litigation. Allowing the federal court action 5 to proceed would unfairly subject the Baldwins to duplicative, burdensome and costly 6 litigation. Allowing the federal court action to proceed would also subject the Baldwins to the 7 risk of inconsistent findings. For these reasons, defendants Ryan Baldwin and Jayce Baldwin 8 respectfully request that this Court dismiss or stay this federal court pending the resolution of 9 the state court case. 10 Dated: April 22, 2008 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The Gomez Law Firm Attorneys at Law

THE GOMEZ LAW FIRM

By: /s/ James S. Iagmin James S. Iagmin, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Ryan Baldwin and Jayce Baldwi [email protected]

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of the 08cv0056 IEG (AJB) Baldwin Defendants Motion for Dismissal or Stay page 5