Mark Frost v. Robert Frederick

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK FROST, an individual; GOOD No. 10-55910
COMMA, INK., a California Corporation,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-08325-PSG-CW
Plaintiffs-counter-defendants
- Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ROBERT FREDERICK, an individual;
MVP ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a British
Columbian Corporation,
Defendants-counter-
claimants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Frost appeals the dismissal of his declaratory judgment action under the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the order and remand the case for such further
proceedings as the district court may deem appropriate.
A district court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over a declaratory
action, even when subject matter jurisdiction is clear. Snodgrass v. Provident Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). When
declining jurisdiction, however, a court is obligated to consider the following
factors: (1) whether retaining jurisdiction will involve the court in a needless
decision of state law, (2) whether the request is a means of forum shopping, and (3)
whether dismissal of the claim for declaratory relief would avoid duplicative
litigation. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing the
factors outlined in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942)). The
district court must record its reasoning on those factors. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v.
Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
If the record contains insufficient reasoning to allow us to review for abuse
of discretion, we remand for proper consideration. Principal Life Ins. Co. v.
Robinson, 394 F.3d 665, 674 (9th Cir. 2005). The record before us does not
disclose enough reasoning to afford appropriate review.
The district court may have considered the Brillhart factors, but after
concluding that the primary issue in the case was a garden variety state law dispute
2
over the formation of a contract, it decided to end the matter on that ground alone.
It did not consider Frost’s assertion that the controversy involved the transfer of
copyright property subject to 17 U.S.C. § 204(a), which invokes a potentially
important question of federal law. It also did not consider the fact that, at the time
of dismissal, there was no parallel proceeding in state court.
At oral argument, this court was advised that essentially the same dispute,
between the same parties, has recently been decided by a California Superior Court
and is on appeal to the California Court of Appeal. On remand, the district court
will have an opportunity to consider whether further proceedings in federal court
are necessary or appropriate.
VACATED and REMANDED, no party to recover costs in this court.
3