UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-50720
Summary Calendar
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
FRED K. JAMES; ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
January 23, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
As a result of an automobile accident and an alleged assault,
Elizabeth Rodriguez sued Fred K. James and his employer in Texas
state court. James was insured by General Accident Insurance
Company (“General Accident”) at the time of the accident and
alleged assault. General Accident, who is not a party to the state
court suit, filed an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in the
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
United States District Court seeking a declaration that it does not
have a duty either to defend James or to pay any judgment obtained
by Rodriguez in the pending state court suit.
The district court dismissed the suit sua sponte on the ground
that a district court may abstain from exercising its jurisdiction
when a suit is pending before a state court capable of resolving
the issue at hand. General Accident unsuccessfully moved for
reconsideration.
We review a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory
judgment action for abuse of discretion. Rowan Companies, Inc. v.
Griffin, 876 F.2d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1989). A district court abuses
its discretion when it does not address and balance “the purposes
of the Declaratory Judgment Act and the factors relevant to the
abstention doctrine on the record.” Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., 996 F.2d 774, 778 (5th Cir.
1993). In Travelers we listed six factors that a district court
must consider on the record, although the district court is free to
consider additional factors. Id.
In this case, the district court considered only the first
such factor, i.e., whether there is a pending state action in which
all of the matters in controversy may be litigated. Because the
district court did not consider all of the relevant factors, we are
compelled to hold that it abused its discretion in dismissing the
suit. See id. at 779.
2
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3