Scott Storick v. CFG, LLC

Case: 12-12793 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 1 of 3
DO NOT PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12793
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 9:12-cv-80181-KMW
SCOTT STORICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CFG, LLC, a foreign limited liability corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 31, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12793 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Scott Storick appeals the district court’s order granting CFG, LLC’s (CFG)
Motion to Dismiss his amended complaint brought pursuant to the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. The district court declined to
exercise jurisdiction over Storick’s declaratory judgment action due to a parallel
garnishment proceeding in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. On appeal,
Storick contends the dismissal of his case was improper. 1
We review the district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for
an abuse of discretion. Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328,
1330 (11th Cir. 2005). “[W]e will leave undisturbed a district court’s ruling unless
we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the
wrong legal standard.” Id.
A district court has discretion to determine “whether and when to entertain
an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, even when the suit otherwise
satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 115
S. Ct. 2137, 2140 (1995). In fact, the Supreme Court has stated “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.” Brillhart v. Excess
Ins. Co. of Am., 62 S. Ct. 1173, 1175-76 (1942). This Court has provided nine
1
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Storick’s amended complaint, we
need not consider his argument regarding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2
Case: 12-12793 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 3 of 3
non-exhaustive factors to guide district courts in determining “whether to abstain
from exercising jurisdiction over state-law claims in the face of parallel litigation
in the state courts.” Ameritas, 411 F.3d at 1331 (quotations omitted).
Storick cannot establish an abuse of discretion by the district court. The
district court thoughtfully applied the guideposts set forth in Ameritas and
concluded the overall balance of the factors solidly supported abstention. We
agree with the district court’s conclusion, and affirm for the reasons stated in the
district court’s well-reasoned order. We note that although Storick accuses CFG of
“procedural fencing” by obtaining a confession of judgment in Delaware, Storick
expressly agreed to allow CFG to confess judgment in Delaware for a long-
standing debt he admits he owes.
AFFIRMED. 2
2
We deny Storick’s “Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal,” construed as a motion to
take judicial notice of the June 12, 2012, orders filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware.
3