Dizol
Government Employees Insurance v. Dizol
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Alarcon, J.
dissenting,
I respectfully dissent.
In Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491 , 62 S.Ct. 1173 , 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942), the Supreme Court instructed that in an action filed pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, a district court has the duty to determine whether the presentation of the plaintiffs claim in state court has been foreclosed under applicable law or whether it can be tested in a pending state court proceeding. Id. at 495-96 , 62 S.Ct. at 1175-76 .
In Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 , 115 S.Ct. 2137 , 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995), the Supreme Court held that a district court has the duty to determine “in the first instance” whether it should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Id. at 289 , 115 S.Ct. at 2143-44 . Notwithstanding the clear command of the Supreme Court’s words in Wilton the majority today holds that a district court may consider the merits of an action brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act “without sua sponte addressing whether jurisdiction should be declined.”
The majority also holds that a panel of this court is “not obligated, sua sponte, to decide whether a district court…
Lead Opinion
Thomas, J.
Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge ALARCON.
In this appeal, we consider the circumstances under which federal courts must make findings concerning the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1994). We conclude that once subject matter jurisdiction exists, the district court may proceed with a declaratory relief action without sua sponte raising the issue of whether it should be entertained. If, however, the court does raise the issue sua sponte, or is asked to decline to entertain the action by a party, then it must explain the basis for its decision on the record.
*1222 I
The automobile accident which draws our attention to this issue occurred on Mamala-hoa Highway on the island of Hawaii, near Pu'uanahulu and Waikola. 1 Both the intoxicated driver Vemell Adams and passenger Kevin Dizol were killed in the one-vehicle collision. Dizol’s estate settled its tort claims against Adams’ estate for $35,000, the limit of Adams’ applicable insurance policy. The estate also settled its tort claims against the Highlands Bar and Grill, where Adams had been drinking prior to the accident, for $255,-000. an amount less than the…