§ 11.3 Federal Statutory Law
Library | Oregon Civil Pleading and Litigation (OSBar) (2020 Ed.) |
§ 11.3 FEDERAL STATUTORY LAW
In 1934, Congress enacted the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), Pub L 73-343, 48 Stat 955. The current version of the DJA is codified at 28 USC §§ 2201 to 2202.
The purpose of the DJA is to give litigants "an early opportunity to resolve federal issues to avoid 'the threat of impending litigation.'" Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir 2002) (quoting Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 80 F3d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir 1996)). The DJA "did not create any new substantive right. It is procedural in nature, designed to expedite and simplify the ascertainment of uncertain rights; and it should be liberally construed to attain that objective." Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Marr, 98 F2d 973, 975 (10th Cir), cert den, 305 US 652 (1938). "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment." 28 USC § 2202. A district court has jurisdiction to entertain an action under the DJA if
(1) the complaint alleges an "actual controversy" between the parties "of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant issuance of a declaratory judgment;" (2) the court possesses an independent basis for jurisdiction over the parties (e.g., federal question or diversity jurisdiction); and (3) the court does not abuse its discretion in its exercise of jurisdiction.
Volvo Constr. Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., Inc., 386 F3d 581, 592 (4th Cir 2004) (quoting 28 USC § 2201(a) and N. Jefferson Square Assocs., L.P. v. Virginia Hous. Dev. Auth., 94 F Supp 2d 709 (ED Va 2000), aff'd, 32 F App'x 684 (4th Cir 2002)). See generally 1 Federal Civil Litigation in Oregon § 13.19 to § 13.28 (OSB Legal Pubs 2009).
§ 11.3-1 Justiciable Controversy
A federal court cannot issue advisory opinions or declare rights in hypothetical cases; rather, the court must "adjudicate live cases or controversies" pursuant to the case or controversy requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir 2000), cert den, 531 US 1143 (2001).
§ 11.3-1(a) An "Actual Controversy"
"In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 USC § 2201(a). The "case of actual controversy" language in the DJA "refers to the type of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III." MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 US 118, 127, 127 S Ct 764, 166 L Ed 2d 604 (2007); see, e.g., Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 US 227, 239-40, 57 S Ct 461, 81 L Ed 617 (1937) ("The [DJA], in its limitation to 'cases of actual controversy,' manifestly has regard to the constitutional provision and is operative only in respect to controversies which are such in the constitutional sense."); Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kearns, 15 F3d 142, 143 (9th Cir 1994) ("Jurisdiction to award declaratory relief exists only in a case of actual controversy . . . [and] this requirement is identical to Article III's constitutional case or controversy requirement."); Peebler v. Reno, 965 F Supp 28, 30 (D Or 1997) ("the [DJA] requires no more stringent showing of justiciability than the Constitution does").
In MedImmune, the Court noted that its cases had not drawn
the brightest of lines between those declaratory-judgment actions that satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and those that do not. Our decisions have required that the dispute be "definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests"; and that it be "real and substantial" and "admi[t] of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts." [Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 300 US at 240-241.] In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 US 270, 273, 61 S Ct 510, 85 L Ed 826 (1941), we summarized as follows: "Basically, the question in each case is 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."
MedImmune, Inc., 549 US at 127; see Sony Elecs., Inc. v. Guardian Media Techs., Ltd., 497 F3d 1271, 1281-85 (Fed Cir 2007) (discussing MedImmune and the "actual controversy" issue under the DJA).
NOTE: Before MedImmune, the Federal Circuit had determined that, in the context of patent disputes, an "actual controversy" under the DJA required "(1) an explicit threat or other action by the patentee, which creates a reasonable apprehension on the part of the declaratory judgment plaintiff that it will face an infringement suit, and (2) present activity which could constitute infringement or concrete steps taken with the intent to conduct such activity." Gen-Probe Inc. v. Vysis, Inc., 359 F3d 1376, 1380 (Fed Cir 2004) (quoting BP Chems. Ltd. v. Union Carbide Corp., 4 F3d 975, 978 (Fed Cir 1993)), abrogated by MedImmune, Inc., 549 US at 132. In SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F3d 1372,...
To continue reading
Request your trial