UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 00-50777
_______________________
John C. Wooley
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
Jeff Johnson and Carol Johnson,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-00-CV-146)
_________________________________________________________________
April 6, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant John Wooley appeals the dismissal of his
declaratory judgment action. We reverse and remand.
This case stems from the appellees’ (the “Johnsons”)
long-term contractual relationship with Schlotsky’s Inc., of which
Wooley is the managing general partner. The Johnsons filed a civil
RICO claim in arbitration against Wooley and Schlotsky’s. Wooley
sought a declaratory judgment that he was not subject to the
arbitration and was not liable to the Johnsons for civil RICO
violations. The arbitrator excused Wooley from the arbitration,
making the first part of the declaratory judgment action moot.
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Cir. Rule 47.5.4.
The Johnsons initially indicated that they would file a
counterclaim to Wooley’s declaratory judgment action, but later
backed off and claimed that they had “no present intent” to sue
him. The district court found no actual controversy and dismissed
the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Reviewing this legal conclusion de novo, we hold that
these facts do establish an actual controversy under 28 U.S.C. §
2201. This case has “taken on final shape so that the court can
see what legal issues it is deciding.” Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.
v. Wolfe, 212 F.3d 891, 895 (5th Cir.2000) (finding no controversy
where the case had not taken on a final shape). The only
contingency here is whether the Johnsons will file suit against
Wooley, and this alone does not preclude a controversy. Rowan
Cos., Inc. v. Griffin, 876 F.2d 26, 28 (5th Cir.1989) (finding an
actual controversy even though a claimant had not yet filed for
disputed benefits). Given the past behavior of the Johnsons and
their refusal to rule out a future suit, we conclude that an actual
controversy exists.
The Johnsons’ argument that they are not subject to
personal jurisdiction in Texas is meritless. Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, controls this case in all material respects. 471 U.S.
462, 474 (1985) (involving a similar long-term relationship).
The Johnsons’ arguments that Wooley lacks standing is
also without merit. Collin Cty. v. Homeowners Ass’n for Values
Essential to Neighborhoods, 915 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.1990).
For these reasons, we REVERSE the dismissal and REMAND
for further proceedings.