Aaron Enters., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION No. 19-4854
| Decision Date | 13 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 19-4854 |
| Citation | 415 F.Supp.3d 595 |
| Parties | AARON ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
James W. Kutz, Nicholas V. Fox, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiff.
Patrick R. Kingsley, Shareda P. Coleman, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.
Does a contingent claim made under a surety bond present an actual case or controversy that would be subject to a declaratory judgment when the bonding company has paid all its obligations under the bond but the insured faces the potential risk that a trustee in bankruptcy might seek a refund of contractual disbursements made to the insured for work done even though the trustee has made no such request or indicated she would make such a request now or in the future?
Currently before the Court is Defendant, Federal Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 5), Plaintiff, Aaron Enterprises, Incorporated's Response in Opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 9), Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff's Surreply (ECF No. 12). The matter is fully briefed for consideration.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Writ of Summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. ECF No. 1 at 1, 7-9. Defendant filed a Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint, Plaintiff complied, and Defendant removed the case to this Court based on diversity of citizenship. Id. , at 1-2, 12-14. Plaintiff filed its Complaint as an Action for Declaratory Judgment pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 7531 et seq. and Pa.R.C.P. 1601 seeking "a declaration that Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiff, pursuant to a payment bond issued by Defendant, any amounts that Plaintiff might be required to return, refund, or otherwise disgorge as preferential payments under the United States Bankruptcy Code." Id. at 19.
Defendant's insured, Welded Construction, L.P. ("Welded"), entered into a written contract with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC ("Transcontinental") to furnish "labor, supervision, materials, tools and equipment and to perform all work necessary in connection with the construction of" a new pipeline. Id. at 20-21. Plaintiff performed as a subcontractor for Welded and furnished "labor, material, and equipment for auger boring and related work that was necessary in the construction" of the new pipeline. Id. at 21. Defendant issued bond with Welded as principal and Transcontinental as obligee. Id.
Welded filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on October 22, 2018. Id. Welded paid Plaintiff approximately $1,428,897.00 over nine (9) individual disbursements. Id. Plaintiff received all payments within ninety (90) days preceding Welded's bankruptcy filing. Id. Therefore, on January 16, 2019, Plaintiff made a contingent bond claim on the amounts paid within those ninety days if it was required "to return, refund, or disgorge all or any portion" of those payments. Id. at 22.
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint because (1) "Plaintiff has no bond claim and any bond claim has now expired ... Plaintiff's attempt to judicially alter the statute of limitations by seeking declaratory relief must be rejected as a matter of law" and (2) "Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for declaratory relief because there is no current case or controversy as required by the Declaratory Judgment Act." ECF No. 5 at 4.
Plaintiff contends that its Complaint presents a case of actual controversy and is therefore properly before this Court. ECF No. 9 at 6. According to Plaintiff, "[t]he actual controversy in this case is that [Defendant] disputes [Plaintiff's] contention that [Defendant] is obligated to reimburse Plaintiff under the Bond, if [Plaintiff] is subsequently ordered to pay the $1,428,8[9]7 in Pre-Petition Funds back to the Bankruptcy Court." ECF No. 9 at 22. (emphasis in original).
When a defendant submits a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must determine whether the motion is a "facial" or "factual" attack. A facial attack considers a claim on its face and asserts that it is insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. See Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele , 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014). "[A] facial attack calls for a district court to apply the same standard of review it would use in considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), i.e., construing the alleged facts in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. As such, a facial attack "contests the sufficiency of the pleadings." Id. (quoting In re Schering Plough Corp. , 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012) ).
A factual attack "is an argument that there is no subject matter jurisdiction because the facts of the case ... do not support the asserted jurisdiction." Id. A factual attack requires a factual dispute that concerns the actual failure of a plaintiff's claims to comport factually with the jurisdictional prerequisites. Id. (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted) (quoting CNA v. United States , 535 F.3d 132, 139 (3d Cir. 2008) ).
The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Schneller ex. rel. Schneller v. Crozer Chester Med. Ctr. , 387 F. App'x 289, 292 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Packard v. Provident Nat'l Bank , 994 F.2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993) ). Here, the Defendant has made a facial attack.
The Declaratory Judgment Act (the "Act") gives federal courts "unique and substantial discretion in deciding to declare the rights of litigants." Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. , 515 U.S. 277, 287, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (quoting Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co. , 344 U.S. 237, 241, 73 S.Ct. 236, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952) ). The Act requires a between the parties before a federal court may exercise jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2201. "It is settled law that, as a procedural remedy, the federal rules respecting declaratory judgment actions, apply in diversity cases" and "the question of justiciability is a federal issue to be determined by federal law." Fed. Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher , 807 F.2d 345, 352 (3d. Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court, in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. , instructed courts to ask, "whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." 549 U.S. 118, 127, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007). That language is a specific reference to the types of cases and controversies that are justiciable under Article III of the Constitution. Id.
Basic justiciability requires that each case decided by federal courts be a i.e., an action which by its nature is concrete and ripe. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1 ; See Mkt. St. Sec., Inc. v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC , 900 F. Supp. 2d 529, 532 (E.D. Pa. 2012) () (citing Artway v. Attorney Gen. , 81 F.3d 1235, 1246-47 (3d. Cir. 1996) ). A declaratory judgment is only available for concrete cases that require an immediate and definite determination of the rights of the parties. Welding Engineers Ltd. v. NFM/Welding Engineers, Inc. , 352 F.Supp.3d 416, 432 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (citing Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., Inc. , 344 U.S. 237, 244, 73 S.Ct. 236, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952) ). If a claim is contingent on future events that may not occur, then it is not ripe. Wyatt v. Virgin Islands, Inc. , 385 F.3d 801, 805 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Texas v. United States , 523 U.S. 296, 300, 118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998) ).
The Third Circuit uses a three-part test to determine whether an action for declaratory judgment is ripe: "(1) the parties must have adverse legal interests; (2) the facts must be sufficiently concrete to allow for a conclusive legal judgment, and (3) the judgment must be useful to the parties." Surrick v. Killion , 449 F.3d 520, 527 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Step–Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 912 F.2d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 1990) ).
Applying the test to the present case, Plaintiff's claim is not ripe for declaratory judgment and, alternatively, this Court cannot decide an anticipatory legal issue in an action that is not pending without violating its limited jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Plaintiff's Complaint seeks an advisory opinion regarding an affirmative defense in potentially separate litigation.
Adversity of Interests . First, there is no adversity of interests between the parties that requires an immediate and definite determination of their rights. According to the Third Circuit, there must be a "substantial threat of real harm and that the threat must remain ‘real and immediate’ throughout the course of the litigation." Presbytery of New Jersey of Orthodox Presbyterian Church v. Florio , 40 F.3d 1454, 1463 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Salvation Army v. Department of Community Affairs , 919 F.2d 183, 192 (3d Cir.1990) ). Adversity is assessed by asking "[w]hether the claim involves uncertain and contingent events or presents a real and substantial threat of harm." Wayne Land & Mineral Grp. LLC v. Delaware River Basin Comm'n , 894 F.3d 509, 523 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing Surrick v. Killion , 449 F.3d 520, 527 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted)).
Because Plaintiff's claim depends on a future, contingent scenario that is far from immediate in nature and, in fact, may never materialize as such, it cannot pass part one of the Third Circuit's three-part test. See Welding Engineers Ltd. v. NFM/Welding Engineers, Inc. , 352 F. Supp. 3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Transit U, Inc.
...legal judgment, and (3) the judgment must be useful to the parties.’ " (Id. at 20-21) (quoting Aaron Enterprises, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co. , 415 F. Supp. 3d 595, 600 (E.D. Pa. 2019) ). First, Plaintiff argues that the Parties’ interests are adverse because National Indemnity opposes their requ......