United National Insurance v. R & D Latex Corp.

Good Law
141 F.3d 916·98 Daily Journal DAR 5051·1998 WL 154346·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6781·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3662
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 6, 1998No. 97-55123California1,765 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

In this comeback case, Mydrin, Inc., again appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and partial summary judgment respectively in favor of United National Insurance Company (“United National”) and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (“Aetna”). United National and Aetna brought declaratory judgment actions seeking to avoid the obligation to defend or indemnify Mydrin against suits still pending in California Superior Court.

We previously vacated the judgment in United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Mydrin, Inc., 1996 WL 436508 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 1996), and remanded these consolidated cases to the district court to consider whether it should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. On remand, however, the district court summarily reaffirmed its earlier decision without providing any supporting reasoning or factual findings. We hold that the district court abused its discretion in failing to articulate its reasons for assuming jurisdiction over these eases and again remand.

I.

Mydrin, Inc., and its predecessor in interest, R & D Latex Corporation, manufactured and sold latex compound for use in tufted carpeting. Two carpet manufacturers, Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., (“Royalty”) and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.