[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 08, 2007
No. 07-10818 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00602-CV-SLB
TRIPLE S REFINING CORP.
f.k.a. Kerr McGee Refining Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MOUNT CANAAN FULL GOSPEL
CHURCH,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(November 8, 2007)
Before MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
* Honorable James H. Hancock, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Alabama, sitting by designation.
Triple S Refining Corporation appeals the dismissal of its complaint for a
declaratory judgment. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the
diversity complaint to avoid interference with a parallel state court action.
Because the district court acted well within its discretion, we affirm.
This Court reviews the dismissal of a complaint for a declaratory judgment
for abuse of discretion. Ameritas v. Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d
1238, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). An abuse of discretion “can occur in three principal
ways: [1] when a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is
not considered; [2] when an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given
significant weight; and [3] when all proper factors, and no improper ones, are
considered, but the court, in weighing those factors, commits a clear error of
judgment.” Id. (quoting Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 970 (8th Cir.
1984)). We are reminded that district courts have “substantial latitude in deciding
whether to stay or dismiss a declaratory judgment suit in light of pending state
proceedings.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286, 115 S. Ct. 2137,
2142 (1995).
Triple S first argues that the district court abused its discretion because no
“extraordinary circumstances” existed that excepted the district court from its
“‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise [its] jurisdiction.” Colorado River
2
Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S. Ct. 1236,
1246 (1976). This argument fails. In Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., the Supreme
Court clarified that “extraordinary circumstances” are unnecessary to warrant
abstention on the basis of pending state litigation and the standard for appellate
review of a dismissal of a complaint for a declaratory judgment is abuse of
discretion. 515 U.S. at 289, 115 S. Ct. at 2144.
Triple S contends that the district court abused its discretion based on the
nine factors established in Ameritas v. Variable Life Insurance Co. v. Roach. 411
F.3d at 1311. We disagree. The arguments made by Triple S are indistinguishable
from the arguments rejected by this Court in Ameritas. That the action in state
court was filed after the federal complaint, in anticipation of the motion to dismiss,
is of no moment. See id. at 1329-30, 1331-32. The district court adequately
weighed the “considerations of federalism, efficiency, and comity” and acted well
within its discretion when it abstained from exercising jurisdiction in favor of the
parallel state action. Id. at1331.
We affirm the dismissal of the complaint filed by Triple S.
AFFIRMED.
3