Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

r -

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 1 of 28

¡.
i '

, "~\it~ \.~.\?c\\O\
D'~\

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-'~i-.:. . ',.:" ':. ':_';,~. :;¡~T ,

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ';!l-F:!J-'" ilA ,
ABINGDON DIVISION
:.:;..r...,,~.. . ~.;íT i r:. ..' " '1 7. , .. ,. ~ r.' ~ 1:,-"" ~
ill" p

. ,). ....J!:l;Z)r.'J . .

¡,

HUFF - COOK, INC.,
, ,

) )

3Y " . "

MAR 2 9 2U01

Plaintiff,
~

Substitute

)

v.
GEORGE E. DALE,

) ) )

)
, -

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1: 99CVOOI09

Commssioner of
Insurance of the State of Mississippi, as liquidator of FIRST NATIONAL LIFE

)
) )
) ) ) )

MEORAUM OPINION AN
ORDER

BY: GLEN M. WILLIAMS

INSURCE COMPAN OF

SENOR u. S. DISTRICT

AMRICA, a Mississippi
corporation; MARTIN R.

JUGE

)

FRAEL; and THE THUORTRUST, a Trust
- -

)
) )

organized and existing

, .

under the laws of Tennessee,
De f endan ts .

j
)
)
)

)

í.

h
I. Introduction
í'
¡:
r 0
¡

This case is before the court on defendants' motion
t.o dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Having

r t i

reviewed both parties' motions and memoranda and after

~;

XV dl ii.3111

TB/f7nO 3:nYd :6£: g

TO/Sl~

.:ß
unsoy ~ .EeTP~t1

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 2 of 28

r ,"

hearing from both parties by way of oral argument it
is the opinion of this court that the issues in this

action are ripe for disposition. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth below, this court hereby denies

defendants'o motion to, dismiss pursuant to the Burford

abstention doctrine.
L _

However,

it is

the judgment of

this court that the case shall
out come of

be stayed pending the

the

First National

Life Insurance

Company

(hereafter FNLIC) liquidation proceedings pending
before state courts in Mississippi.
¡

! .

II. Background
The plaintiff filed suit in this matter on July 9,

r ' , í ~

1999. The amended and supplemental complaint filed on
September 27, 2000 by the substitute plaintiff alleges

r .

the following facts. In April, 1999 Settlers Lif~
r' I
i ,0

¡--t:

Insurance Company (hereafter Settlers) entered into a

f'
i .

reinsurance agreement with FNLIC to tr~nsfer to FNLIC
a group of burial insurance policies known as a JJ care

r'i I

l

plan" book. Settlers maintained $46 million in
2

XV~lq2rH T£/900 30Vd :6£:9

TO/ £1 ~

U~~~nY ~ ~~T~--

\. Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

i \, Filed 06/03/2005

I-

Page 3 of 28

r.

reserve tor the payment of claims associated with
r'
¡,

these policies.

The agreement contemplated that

f'

Settlers would transfer all liability derived from the

policies to FNIC plus $44. 795 million in cash. In

essence, FNLIC would receive $46 miiiion in liabiii ty i
but only $44.795 million in cash. Thus, FNLIC agreed
to pay $1.75 million for the "care plan" book!. On
¡,

April 9, 1999, FNLIC requested a transfer of
$44 1795,476.00 from Settlers as the reserves for

polices that were to be assumed by FNLIC under the

agreement. The money was transferred from two of
, ' ;

FNLICI s accounts at First Union Bank in Charlotte,
f ' \ . ,

North Carolina. The money was transferred to FNLIC's
account at First Tennessee Bank in Memphia, Tennessee.

r .

Plaintiff ~lleges that ~IC was controlled by
r"-;

the Thunor Trust (hereafter Thunor) which operated out
I t ..

of Franklin, Tennessee. Plaintiff further alleges
r ' , í

i. .
r '
¡

;

IThis is referred to as a cedig commssion.
3

-- 'XVdlQ.3t'H' 1£/900 aOVd

:68 :g

10/l=/f1- "

.,. . ' '''--. _......

U't::sn~ 'Ii:innTo

,.
r'

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 4 of 28

that Thunor was controlled indirectly by Mr. Martin
!'
, ,

,Frankel, a former securities investment advisor who

has been banned by the United States Security and
Exchange commission from investing other peoples
money.

2 Thunor had set up two holding companies,

International Financial Corporation and Franklin

American Corporation. International Financial
Corporation, was wholly owned by Thunor. Franklin

American Corporation had a public offering of stock in
1991, and 15.5% of Franklin American's stock was owned
¡.

by the public with the balance controlled by Thunor.

One of the companies owned by International Financial
i ;

Corporation was the defendant, FNLIC. According to
the plaintiff, the custodian of Thunor' s ~nvestments
was .an entity named, Liberty l'ational Securities, Inc.

! '

r ì !

r~

r'
f í

which was controlled by Mr. Frankel.

l-.

In early 1999, Thunor and its subsidiaries were

f ' ! t ,

, . \

2Mr. Franel has been indicted for embezzing money from varous insurance companies;
he ha been arested and has been extadited to tht: United States.

4

l,
!

L
XV.!l qB1Y

T ~ 11.00 ';nw,. . c.r- . ~

..

.... -- ..-

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB
r-l

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

/'

Page 5 of 28

coming under scrutiny by state regulatory agencies.
, i

¡-

Insurance Department examiners from Mississippi were
investigating FNLIC, and Tennessee examiners were

f'
i , ,

, ,
¡

investigating other Thunor holdings. At the same time
these investigations were proceeding, FNLIC made a

.. .

wri tten proposal contemplating the reinsurance
, '

transaction discussed above. Settlers agreed to
transfer the funds contemplatea by the agreement only
if FNLIC sent a financial statement for the year 1998

,'
, ! , .

i , ,

to Settlers. This statement was requested by Settlers
¡

, ,

and provided by FNLIC. The statement was signed by
the trustee of Thunor under oath and showed over $100

r -

¡.
, ,

miiiion in assets. The plaintiff claims that at the
time the statement was sent to Set tIers, the trustee

f : i i \ ,

f'
i

and others at FNLIC knew that the assets claimed by
FNLIC in the statement were not controlled by FNLIC.

.":
, . j L _ j i

Settlers claims that the agreement. entered into by

r \

L,
r ' I

Settlers and FNLIC did not comply with regulatory
standards provided by either the Commonwealth of
5

XV.:I1, q.3nl

T£/BOO 3DVd:6£:~

TO/£í'ú

ü--lsnv '& .ialPTg

. t~ . Q .,

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

,r-

Page 6 of 28

virginia or the' state of Mississippi. In parti~ular,

the agreement did not contain an insol veney clause.
r : ì . .

The agreement also' contained a clause providing that

it was subj ect to and contingent upon receipt by ceder

(Set tIers) and reinsurer (FNLIC) on any required
regulatory approvals of the transaction - Settlers

claims that the required regulatory approvals of the
, .

transaction were never obtained. Despi te these facts,
on April 9, 2000, at the request of FNLIC, Settlers

transferred $44, 795,476.00 to FNLIC. Plaintiff claims
l _

that the money was sent to FNLIC's account in Memphis,
r ' i

Tennessee. From the bank in Tennessee, the money was
transferred by wire t? the' Bank of New York, in New
, t .

York, New York, to a Dreyfus account in the name of

FNLIC. Plaintiff claims that the Dreyfus account was

r---

¡

i í

i r -

f.

controlled by Mr. Frankel. Settlers alleges that
Frankel had given standing instructions to Dreyfus
that any securi ties received in the account were to be

L

f ¡

( ,

¡.
j

redeemed, and togeth~r with cash in the account were
6

XVdlQ.3nr 18/600 30Vd : 6£: 9

TOIK/17

U1:¡ShV' ~ ÂetPtg

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 7 of 28

r --

to be transferred by wire to another bank in New York
f'
i , ,
¡

City, UBS, for further

'transfer to Banque SCS Alliance

¡

r- ~ i
¡

SA, in Geneva, Switzerland. As a result of these
instructions on April 12, 1999, Dreyfus wired

i t ,

f '

$44,795,476.00 along with $17, 640.49 in accrued
, '

,;
¡

t

interest to the account in Switzerland of which Mr.
Frankel was the beneficial owner.

. ;

In early May, 1999, all of Thunor's subsidiaries

were placed in receivership by the Insurance

Commissioners of each company's state. FNLIC was
i l .
¡

placed in' rehabilitation in Mississippi on May 10,

1999, and Settlers was notified that the $44.795

million transferred to FNLIC had been stolen - This
f. i
i , ,

had the effect of making Settlers insolvent and on May
14, 1999, Settlers was placed. in receivership in

r-;
I

.

Virginia, and the State Corporation Commission was

f'
l
, '

appointed receiver. The original plaintiff Virginia
Insurance Commissioner, Alfred Gross, was appointed as

, ' i i

¡

l !

Deputy Receiver to marshal the assets of Settlers.
7

XViIl-ii.3111~' T~/OTO-gDVd :6£: g

TOíE:/v

'Urfsliy ~Ãêt()'1'S

, '

".

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 8 of 28

J-

The former plaintiff Commissioner Gross3 notified
i '

defendant Dale4 that the plaintiff took the position

that Settlers' execution of the April 1999 reinsurance
agreement with FNLIC was obtained through material

misrepresentations and omissions by FNLIC. The plaintiff also notified the defendant that the
reinsurance agreement as drafted by FNLIC did not
, '

comply with Virginia or Mississippi law; that the

transfer of $44,795 million from Settlers to FNLIC on
. ,

April 9, 1999, constituted an invalid encumbrance of
¡

¡.

those assets

under Article

4, Chapter

14, Ti tIe' 38.2,

¡.

30n May 18, 2000, ths c'our entered an order allowig plaintiff to substitute Setters as
. .

par plaitiff. In December, i 999, the Guadian Life Jnsuce Company entered into a

purchase agreement with Commssioner Gross as receiver of Settlers. On December 15,1999,
r ¡

the change of control of Setters was approved by the State Corporation Commission of the

¡,
r . I

L_ i ¡
f ' r ¡

l-c

Virginia. National Guardian was issued stock in Settlers and the founders' ths change of control to National Guadian the . the Receiver and Commis~ioner Gross, as deputy receiver, were dischaged. As a result of discharge of the receiver and deputy receiver and the provions of the purchase agrement with National Guardian. National Guardian agred to allow the founders of Setters to pursue claim against the persons who caused the loss to Setters, including the right to pursue, claims agaist
èommonwealth of stock in Settlers was canceled. As a resut of

I'

the defendants in ths åction. On September 27, 2000. thi cour entered an order allowig the plainti to reflect the change in nae of Setters to Huf-Cook, lnc.
"Defendant Dale was appointed Liquidator for FNIC. He was given control over all assets ofFNIC. FNIC no longer exists independently from defendant Dale as Liquidator of

L
r'
i

FNI C.
8

f J \ 1

¡.
i t .

KV~+ii21'H

T£/ttÒ 3DVd .' :6£: 9

ToiR/f1

UTisnv 12 ÂATon::

. f- ',. ,
Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB
f' !

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 9 of 28

of the Code of virginia, and that FNLIC thus accepted

l
.'
I , , I r .

those assets subject to a superior, perfected, and
preferential lien in favor ofl the policyholders of

i .

Settlers. Settlers also takes the position that any
portion of the $44.795 million which is now, or
, ' i t .

súbsequently comes into the possession of defendant
Dale, belongs to plaintiff as an

r -

asset of the estate

of Settlers.

Next, plaintiff alleges that defend?lt Dale
notified the former plaintiff, Commissioner Gross,
¡.

that defendant Dale rej ected Settlers' claim and did
not intt:nd to make payments to Settlers under the

f. i

i¡
! I ' i ! ,

reinsurance agreement. Defendant Dale then notified plaintiff of his intention to assert a prior and
superior claim" to any part of the $44, 795,476.00 which

l
r ~ i

r--i

i .

may be, o"r come into the possession of defendant, and
'-

will hold such funds as a general asset of the estate

i . i i

l,

of FNLIC for distribution to other creditors. Dale
has also canceled the reinsurance agreement with
9

r '

i,
f . !

L_

XV dlQ81'H

T£/ZTO HOYd : 6£': g" TO/£/11

'u--¡:sny 2& ASIPl'S .

. i ~ i-'"

,

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

i, Filed 06/03/2005

Page 10 of 28

f'
f ! j

Set tIers and will not pay the claims under the
pol iciés of insurance which were to be assumed by

í:

r'
l :
¡

FNLIC.
The plaintiff makes four claims for relief in the

r'

complaint. The first two ask the court to invoke its
, . equi table

powers and the third and fourth claims are

l t:
i ! ' i e

civil claims for damages under the Federal RICO

statutes, specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (b), .(c),
and (d). The equitable relief sought by plaintiff
asks that this court enter a declaration pursuant to 28 V.S.C. § 2201, of Settlers' r~ghts and legal

¡.

r -

relationship with defendant Dale. Specifically, the
plaintiff asks that this court enter a declaration
with the force and effect of a final judgment that:
(1) the reinsurance agreement between Settlers and FNLIC, was obtained by fraud, is illegal, and is void,

I'
I

i

¡,

i

l
('
¡.
i

,-~

L
\,

or in the alternative, that Settlers is entitled to a
recission of that agreement; (2) that the transfer of
$44, 795,476.00 from Settlers to FNLIC on April 9,
10

)

l"
!

L
¡

~ - ~... ~.- .. --.

.. XV dl qiii:U-

T&/&TO '3ÐVd

:6&':~

TO/&Tú- .

",'". UUsnv ~ Ãeipi:9

J- "

,

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

i, Filed 06/03/2005

Page 11 of 28

r-

1999, was ob~ained by fraud or material

¡.

misrepresentations or omissions, and should be set
aside, or, in the alternative was made in violation of

i ' i i .

law, and that any portion of such funds which are in
the possession of, or come into the possession of, the

-,.

defendant Dale are subj ect to a prior, perfected and

superior lien in favor of the policyholders of
¡,

Settlers; and (3) that defendant Dale has no right,

title or interest in any portion of the $44,795,476.00
~ -

which is now in the possession of, or which may . subsequently come into the possession of defendant Dale, and that such funds are to be held in trust as

, , .

f . ; 'i t .

the separate property of plaintiff. The second claim
for equitable relief sought by the plaintiff is the
imposi tion of a constructive trust by .this court.

f '
¡

( ,

r . í ,

i--~

Specifically, the plaintiff asks that this court

, , I I

r' L.c
r'
!

exercise its equitable powers by imposing a
constructive trust in favor of plaintiff on any

ìt

portion of the funds transferred by Settlers to FNLIC
11

- ~ - -. - . ,- ': -~-

KV~::..q.3ni-" , Tf;I17TO--aDVd':Hf; :'B~"O TO/~/v

ut:¡snv'~ 1ialPtg-

. '.- '.

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB
,'
¡

Document 55-5

\" / Filed 06/03/2005

¡" i -,ì

Page 12 of 28

on April 9, 1999, which are now in the possession of

r'
!

the defendants Dale or Frankal, and the court enter an ,
order and judgment requiring :restitution of the stolen

r -

¡-

¡

funds to the plaintiff.

r ; ! , ,

III. Discussion
The defendant has asked the court to dismiss the

¡r '

plaintiff's çlaim based upon the Burford abstention

doctrine.
, ,

The defendant argues that the main issue in

this action is whether this court or the Mississippi

chancery court, which has already taken jurisdiction
i i ,

in the case of FNLIC and entered a Liquidation Order

r'
!
¡

pursuant to the Mississippi Insurers Rehabilitation
and Liquidation Act5 should decide who owns the $44.795

l.
í
¡

.sOn June 29, 1999. the chancery cour of the First Judicial district of Hinds County

i \ ,

entered a Liquidation Order deag with the inolvency ofFNIC. SpecifcaUy the cour found
that FNLIC was inolvent as defined by Miss. Code An. § 83-24-7, amI tht Commssioner s asets. The order contas provisions that all pesons FNIC' Dale is appointed as liquidator of
are prohibited from obtag any preference, judgment, attachment, garshment oflien agaist

f' 1
r"T
£

FNI C OT its assets. wherever locate~ or the commencement, prosecuton or fuer prosecuton

i;
¡, ¡,

r ' l _ i ,

of any suit action or proceedig having any such purose of effect. The order also states tht no action at law or equity or in arbitrtion may be brought agaist the company (FIC) or
Liquidator whether in Mississippi or elsewhere. Such existng actions may not be maitaed or
fuer presented or prosecuted afer issance of th liqUidation order. All claims must be

i ,

presented thoughout the claims process. The cour notes th the intat action wa fied on July

l'

9, i 999, afer the liquidation order entered by the Mississippi Chancery Cour
12

--- --....-. -.-,. --. - ."

, ",' '-, ,.'xv ~:¡qatlI

TE;/~HO~~IIVd""--~'B-e-:-'g.'-"~ "Tö/E/'i" .,

uT::smi '' ÁaTD'IQ--

¡

'Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

( Filed 06/03/2005

Page 13 of 28

J
i

, ~

million that forms the basis of this action.

In

..

short, it is the opinion of this court that the

Mississippi courts should determine the outcome of
I (. I

this situation. Therefore, for the reasons stated
below the motion to dismiss is denied, and this action
is stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings

, .
¡

í

,- I I

pursuant to the Liquidation Order entered by the
l ;

Mississippi Chancery Court_

Defendants argue that this court should dismiss the
instant action based on abstention grounds.
Specifically, defendants argue that' under United

States Supreme Court precedent delivered in Burford v.
i ,
¡

Sun Oil Co., this court should abstain from exercising
! l .

jurisdiction and dismiss this case.
f ~
Î

In Burford, the

Supreme Court recognized that the federal courts have
the power to refrain from taking jurisdiction in cases

l l
, f -

L1:

¡

Ij

that would hinder or dis.rupt state administrative
decisions. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 317318 (i94~). The Burford Court said, "Although a federal
13

r' ,'
í ¡

r.
!

¡

~ '-XVA~'q.3tY , -' T~/9TO:¡OVd : 6&: 9 ", "'to/£)'6-'-""'--iÚisí:v~ ÂeT Dye:

'.

'"

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5
)

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 14 of 28

i.
¡.
! ,

I .

equi ty court does have jurisdiction. of a particular

proceeding, it may, in its sound discretion, whether
its jurisdiction is invoked on the ground

of diversity

I .
¡

of citizenship or otherwise, refuse to enforce or

protect legal rights, the exercise of which may be
prejudicial to, the public interest for it is in the

public interest that federal courts of equity should
exercise their discretionary power with proper regard
for the rightful independence of state governments in
carrying out their ,domestic policy. II Burford v. Sun
oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 317-318 (1943) (citations
, . ! i

omitted). The defendants argue that in fact the

, .

continuation of this case on the docket of this court

¡,
! ì , ~

would hinder and disrupt the proceedings and decisions
of the Mississippi Chancery Court which has already

l ;

i~
¡ ~ ;

taken jurisdiction in an action involving essentially
the same

L
¡

parties as the instant case. This argument

is weii taken by the court.

¡

, ,

In Myles Lumber Co. v. CNA Financial Corp., the
14

l _

i . , ! , L-.~

jtn~.¡::q~ri:íf i~-/TT-o ';OV,.i" : ~~: c

Tn ie i'f

TlT"I anu '" J:"..."'T"

. - '-' .'

, "

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

\. Filed 06/03/2005

I

/

Page 15 of 28

r- '-

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the

!'
¡.
i

abstention doctrine.

In Myles, the plaintiff filed

.'

suit in state eourt against the defendant CNA seeking
declaratory judgment of Myles' rights under an
insurance policy and damages from breach of contract

, .

rì.

and unfair trade practices. CNA removed the state

action to federal court pursuant to di versi ty of
citizenship. The district court abstained from

i ,

exercising jurisdiction and remanded the case back to
the state court.
In its opinion the Fourth Cireui t

Court of Appeals held that claims for damages were not
! . I , .

subject to remand and that the remand of the
declaratory judgment claim was an abuse of discretion.
Myles Lumber Co. v. CNA Financial Corp., 233 F.3d 82l,

í,

r ! i

i í

i.

822 (4th Cir. 2000). In his opinion, Judge Wilkins

(¡
i

!' !

stated, " (d) istrict courts ordinarily have a strict
duty to exercise the jurisdiction that is conferred on
them by Congre s s . However, when a suit involves

I' i

i -

L
I' i
, i

.: .!

equitable or discretionary, relief, a district court
15
i i 1 ¡

¡.
i

L_

xv.!::q,8T'H

lRjRTèj""~ÒVn :R~:C

TO/C:/'ñ

tn~!:m\- 'J¡';;;nTO

'.. ....

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

i Filed 06/03/2005 \

/

Page 16 of 28

__r._

r,

may either stay the suit in favor of state court

f'
!
¡

action or 'decline to exercise jurisdiction altogether by ... dismissing the suit or remanding it to state

L:

¡.

court. i In contrast a district court may stay an
! ' i , .

action seeking damagea but generally may not subj ect
it td 'outright dism£ssal or remand'
"

~¡ ~

rd. at 823

(citing 'Ouackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S.

, .

¡

¡

r .

7 06 , 716 i i i 6 S. Ct. i 7 i 2, i 35 L. Ed . 2 d 1 ( i 9 9 6) .
Therefore, the issues presented by the instant case
are: (1) whether this court should abstain and decline

- t _

f

¡

¡,

to exercise jurisdiction on plaintiff's equitable claims for declaratory judgment and constructive

l'
f " i t ;

trustj (2)whether this court should dismiss the claims
for equitable relief or stay them pending the outcome

,'
i ! . , ,

¡i

of the proceedings in the Mississippi court; (3)
whether this court should abstain from exercising
jurisdiction on plaintiff! s claims for damages under

h
f: i
f ~ i '

..
L,
I " I

the civil RICO statute and; (4)whether the court

should stay the plaintiff's claims under the civil
16

L

f ~ ;

L

t
. YV,Jiug'I')

T~ IRTO ~nYrl ~ QP ~ ~

Tn In,'1

....___--... _ "'_____

"

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005 (

;'

, j

Page 17 of 28

r d

RICO statute pending- the 'outcome of the proceedings in

r'
ì;
Î

. the Mississippi court.
This cQurt must consider four factors in deciding

¡:
i

whether to exercise its discretion to hear the

¡.

declaratory judgment action. See rd. at 824.

These

!' r-t

four factors are: (1) the strength of the states'
interest in having the issues decided in state courts i

r'

, .

(2) whether the issues raised before the federal court

can be more efficiently determined in the state court

action that is pènding¡ (3) whether permitting the
federal action to go on would result in the
i

entanglement of state and federal court systems,

r : i. __

because of the presence of overlapping law and fact
and; (4) whether the declaratory judgment action is

r'
i L

being used as a tool of forum shopping or p~ocedural

, i 1

tu~

fencing. See rd. at 824.
The first factor this

f ~

L
f .
¡

court must consider is the

strength 'of the states' interest in having the issues.

I ,

, . ! i

in this case decided in state court. The use of the
17

xv!!i tdfnl

T~/07.0 ~nVn :A~:C

. --- -

Tn ICY'~

........,,-..... -. ,.-----

. ~ "

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB
, '

Document 55-5

( Filed 06/03/2005

Page 18 of 28

i-

Burford abstention doctrine has been long held by
federal courts to apply in actions against an
insurance company subj ect to state delinquency

r' I

r . ,

i . proceedings. See Charleston Area Med. Center. Inc. v.
, . ,

Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 6 F. 3d 243, 250 (4~ Cir.
1993) i Universal Marine Ins. ~o. v. Beacon Ins. Co.,

, . ,

! '

768 F.2d 84, 88 (4~h Cir. 1985). In Universal, the

court said: It (r) eorganization of insolvent insurance
companies is a mater of state law and is handled

through insolvency proceedings in state court. II

Universal Marine Ins. Co., 768 F.2d at 88.
r -

(citing

Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co.. Inc. v. Geeslin, 530
F.2d 154, 159 (7th Cir. 1976) i Motlow v. Southern

, , l '

Holding & Securities Corp., 95 F. 2d 721, 725 - 2 6 (8th

~;

¡, Cir.), cert. denied, 305 u.S. 609, 59 S.Ct. 681 83
! I

i i

~, L.Ed. 388 .(1938)). In this case it is clear that the
¡-

L

f -

state of

Mississippi has enacted a regulatory scheme

l l, l
i I

to deal with reorganization of insolvent insurance
companies and has set a schedule for the repayment of
18

XV.!lqBtlltE/TZ03UVd : BE: g

TO/~ 1'&

UT-- cfnv 'I J:"T""~""

. .~ J.
- -t Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005 ( )

Page 19 of 28
')

r'

credi tors of the insolvent insurance company.

¡ 7

Therefore, it is the opinion of this court that

I '. ,
, 1

Mississippi has a very strong interest in having this
matter decided in state court.

¡,

!'
i t _

The next factor for this court to consider is

,

f ;

whether the issues raised before this court can be

i .

more efficiently determined in the state court action
, '

in Mississippi.

In the Myles case i Judge Wilkins

i .

stated thát the fact that there was no state action
I . i , .

pending weighed heavily in favor of retaining
jurisdiction and not abstaining in the case.

t,
i

Myles

l
l
"¡ ~ í i , , , i , J
¡

Lumber Co., 233 F. 3d at 824.

In Myles i the case was

before the district court pursuant to removal by the
defendant based on diversity of citizenship, therefore

ther~ was no state action pending at'the time the

, ! ì i

r'¡
( :

district court entered its ruling. Id. at 824.

In

L
r r

contrast, in the case before this court there has been.

a state court action pending in Mississippi that was.

i'
I

initiated before the instant case. The Mississippi
¡,

19
I '
¡

¡.

!'

L
XV.!l q,sJH

TR/ZZO ~nVn : A~: c

Tn ,,- ix.

TT___ __... _

. .i. ., - - '~

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

Document 55-5 ì

Filed 06/03/2005 J

.. \ 'i !

Page 20 of 28

t'
f'

Chancery Court of Hinds County exercised jurisdiction
over this matter and entered a stay prohibiting all
persons from obtaining any preference, judgment,

i i . i ,

f'
¡,

attachment, garnishment or lien against FNLIC or its
assets, wherever located, or the commencement,

ì,
. '

i I

r'

~i ,

prosecution or further prosecution of any sui t, action
or proceeding having any such purpose or effect. The
order also states that no action at law or equity or

i ' i i ;

¡

¡,

in arbitration may be brought .against the company or

".

liquidator whether in Mississippi or elsewhere.

i:
¡

In Centennial Life ins.' Co. v. Poston, the court
stated that the efficiency factor favored abstention

r'
¡

t

r'

when a pending state action would settle the entire

t,
¡

,

matter but a federal declaratory judgment action would
¡,
t

¡;

not. Centennial Life Ins. Co. v. Poston, B8 F. 3d
.255, 25B (4th Cir. 1996). In Poston, the court found

i
¡

r'

r-¡

f:

! ;

k
!'
r'
¡

it significant that the state court action contained a

defendant and a number of issues not present in the

federal action. See Id. at' 258. This is similar to
20

XV.!l q.31'H

T£/£ZO 30Vd :S£:g

TO /~ /17

TTT'\ Qn~ '' .(~TnTn

i .

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

\

Document 55-5

i \ Filed 06/03/2005

/

Page 21 of 28

J-'

the case before this court in that not only are there

J i

r'

numerous other parties involved in the state action

but there are issues that have not even been addressed
¡

, .

that would be affected by a ruling by this court_

t ,

Therefore, it is the opinion of this court that the

r

f .( .

issues raised in this case can be more efficiently
determined in the state court action that is pending

, '

and the second factor weighs strongly in favor of

abstention.
The third factor for this court to consider is'
r

¡.

whether permi ttirig the federal action to go forward

would result in the entanglement of state and federal
, . , i , .

court systems, because of the presence of overlapping

l
f' ,

law and fact.

In Myles, the court was again persuaded

l j

by the fact that there was no pending action in state

r,
r . f i

court. Myles Lumber Co., 233 F.3d at 824.

In the

h

instant case, however, there is an action pending in
the Mississippi courts which began before this court

i ' i ! \ ,

l
r'
I

was asked to exercise its jurisdiction. Because there
21

L,
r .
¡

L~

'jh;r,.¡:,qSt')

T~ f~7n ~nYrl ~Q~. ~

Tn

I,.'%.

...._- ---- - ..

! 1('
~

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

r

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005 ).~-¡-...)

Page 22 of 28

, ,

was a order placing FNLIC in, liquidation by the
Mississippi Court and a stay was issued to prevent the

; i . , I

r'

plaintiff from seeking redress in a forum other than
í' I

1: ¡
, \

the Mississippi chancery court, any action by this

ì,
r . I r I ,

court would necessarily cause an entanglement of the

state and federal court systems. Any decision at this
time would greatly affect

I ' ! i .

all the parties to the

action in the Mississippi chancery court and would
¡,
¡

also affect the amount of redress that any creditor of
t .

l,

FNLIC . could recover under the state insolvency

i :

proceedings. Therefore, an analysis under the third
factor also weighs heavily in favor of abstention.

r , t .

ií

The fourth and final factor for this court to

i. ,

f'
I .

consider is whether the declaratory judgment action is

L"

being used as a tool of forum shopping or procedural
, ¡ ,

r-¡

fencing. -One fact that is particularly salient to
this issue is the fact that this' action' was filed

"

t . r i

¡¡
I . i

I'

¡

i'

after the Mississippi Chancery Court had issued an

f'

order placing FNIC into liquidation and entering a
22

XV.J,, q.3l).

T~ïc7n ~òv~ : ~~ ~ ~

Tn in I':

...._- ---- - ..

't "
~
"

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB

r-...

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005 iY~---

Page 23 of 28

i. '

stay preventing any form of redress other than in the
r ~ i i i ;

Mississippi Chancery Court. This fact inclines this
court to adopt the theory that the plaintiff was "not

r'
¡,

happy with the priority its claim would receive under
r ' i ! i ,

the liquidation proceedings pending in Mississippi and
therefore, sought to have its rights determined in a
federal jurisdiction. It seems that there is but one

, t ,

r---

I ;

i ' i

i . !

possible motive that the plaintiff could have in
filing this claim, and that is to avoid the judgment

¡,

and priori ty scheme of the Mississippi court. These
¡,
¡

facts indicate the plaintiff did not consider the forum in Mississippi sufficient to address its claims

,'
i

¡.

r:
¡,

and therefore chose to file this action. The court
finds that this action was filed to enable the

I'
l l , \ ,

plaintiff to avail itself of the jurisdiction of this
r!
)

l"¡
i :

court which would not have the same priority scheme,

L
I:

and limitations as the Chancery Court in Mississippi.

i,
i

For these reasons the court finds that an analysis of
the fourth factor leans toward abstention.
23

r'
I

l r

r'

¡,

t ;.

! :

h
i '

XV,.¡:iu2"tu

T~ IQ7n ~nYrl ~ Q~' ~

Tn ,,. ...

!

r'

"

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB
~

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005 í'-,
\

Page 24 of 28

Jd
l d I
¡

After consideration of the four factors discussed
. above the court finds that it woul d be proper to

L,

i .
¡

abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this case at

this time. However, this brings up the issue as to
, ' I i t .

whether this court should dismiss plaintiff's claims for equitable relief or stay them pending the outcome
of the state insolvency proceedings in Mississippi.

í i ,

L

l
, . t ,

If these claims were the only claims advanced by the

i

plaintiff, it would be within this court's discretion

to dismiss the claims. However, along with the claims
¡,
¡.
i i ,

for equitable relief, the plaintiff has set fourth a
,claim under the Federal civil RICO statute against the

r d

defendants. ~he plaintiff's claims under the civil
RICO statute prevent this court from dismissing this

L¡

l i,
!' \

part of the action. In Ouakenbush v. Allstate Ins.
iI
Co. i the Supreme Court addressed the issue of

i:
L
J'
i ' i j

abstention dealing with claims for money damages. See
Ouakenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 135 L.

f'
l ' I

Ed . 2 d i ( i 9 9 6) .

In particular the Court said that,
24

¡,
¡

I i

L
xv.n:q.3ni
T~II.7.0 ;¡nVrr : R(': C
Tn ie.'~

1'...... __... _ ,0_____

.!rl
. ¡ "

r'

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB ('ì.

'.' )

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005 1.--"
i

Page 25 of 28

\

r'

¡. I
¡,

, ,

¡.

t,
f'
i i .

1 r-:

i.
f ' i

!

(wJ e have thus held that in cases where the relief being sought is equitable in nature or otherwise discretionary, federal courts not only have the power to stay the action based on abstention principles, but can also, in otherwise appropriate circumstances, decline to exercise jurisdiction altogether by either dismissing the suit or remanding it to state court. By contrast i while we have held that federal courts, may stay actions for damages based on abstention principles, we have not held that those principles support the outright dismissal or remand of damages actions.

!,

f'
",
¡ ¡

Ouakenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 721,
135 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1996).

f . ,

i

¡

Upon further exploration of the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in Ouakenbush, the

i I i ,

Fifth

i'
I

Circui t Court of Appeals in Webb. v. B. C. Rogers

L.

r '
¡

Foul try, Inc. i stated that Ouakenbush, imposes an

L

\l
r' i
i i j

"ironclad" bar to dismissing or remanding a damages
action. Webb. v. B. C. Rogers Poultry. Inc., 174 F. 3d.

1r

r'¡
i :

i

697, 701 (5th cir. 1999). The court tends to agree

h
r: L
!'
¡ ¡

with the court in Webb, in that while an action for
damages may be stayed based on abstention grounds, an
outright dismissal would tear completely against the
25

r'
i i ,

i r

L"

xv i(lii.31Y

TP./R7.0~OVn : A~: c

Tn/C'/+.

T'fT"" n..~.. .. ,.'.__:._

., I.'

_~ I ~ ,;,

í . ,_, ,_
\ )

f Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB \.

,-_..,

Document 55-5

Filed 06/03/2005

f\

Page 26 of 28

) Supreme Court's ruling. in Ouakenbush. Therefore, the
claim for damages under the civil RICO statute

r'
!

í.

advanced by the plaintiff cannot be dismissed pursuant
f :

¡.

¡

to abstent ion grounds _ However, it is the judgment of

this court that the claim for relief under the civil
t_:
¡

RICO statute should be stayed pending the outcome of
the proceedings in the Mississippi Chancery Court.

! ' i ,

I .

This leaves the final issue as whether this court

should dismiss the plaintiff i s claims for equitable
relief or stay them pending the outcome of the
;
¡

,.
¡!

proceedings in the Mississippi Chancery Court.

In

Myles, the Fourth Circuit said if a district court

r -

¡.

,

must retain jurisdiction over the damages claims then
it would be more efficient for the court to retain

L

jurisdiction over all claims. Myles Lumber Co., 233
¡, L_
i j

F.3d at 824. (citing Gov' t. Employees Ins. Co. v.

i: ! , Dizol, 133 F. 3d _ 1220, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 1998))

i ~ (stating that, to avoid piecemeal litigation, a
I ¡

r ' district court generally should not remand or decline

l i,
i ! .
¡

26

k .~

'XV,'¡'''Q8t11

T~ 1~7-n ~nv~ ~R~: c

TriiC'ir.

.....,'" """"... - ~------

'~,. l"

1. ~, ..
r'

( Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB \

,'..--..

Document 55-5
)

Filed 06/03/2005 \ Page 27 of 28 t ì
!

('

to entertain a declaratory relief, claim when other
claims are joined wi th the claim for declaratory

!

relief) .
f -

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that
"'
l

while it would be suitable for this court to dismiss

- -

plaintiff's equitable claims if they stood on their
own, it would be improper for this court to dismiss

these claims because they are joined with an actiön at

law for damages. Therefore, plaintiff's claims for
equitable relief are also stayed pending the outcome

l . of the proceedings in the Mississippi Chancery Court.
r'
i .

r - iV. Conclusion
¡,
r

For the reasons set forth above, defendants' motion
to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

l.
r ' i i

¡

I

It is the JUGMENT of

r-~ this court that all of plaintiff's claims in this
!l i h action are STAYED pending the outcome of current

I: litigation in the Chancery Court of Hinds, County i,

I ' Mississippi.

i
¡,

27

. XVAlQ2ty

H:/Os:O :;OVrl : RS::~

TO It' 1=&

lIT"" anu 'K r"'TnTrt

i f 1 '. ~ .~

Case 3:01-cv-01515-EBB Document 55-5 (~')
ì

Filed 06/03/2005
\,_ J

(r

Page 28 of 28
')

, '"

-

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of
this Memorandum Opinion to all counsel of record.

ENTER: This ~ day of March, 2001.
.~LtL/. fa Lt

OD j J )~¡¡
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUGE

L

,
¡

r

r,

k
i f
;
¡

i i i

¡

I f

"-

28
i i
¡

. . iRUi; COPY. TE~.r J~" j:C01T, JI ¡;

( ! b.----

'P.

X;V~lq.31H

T~/T~O ~DVn :R~:C

Tn IC' i~

...._.. -_.... - -