APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. V. RICARDO LARA, No. 21-15679 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The California Insurance Commissioner filed an ex parte conservation application to place the California Insurance Company (“CIC I”) in a conservatorship after CIC I’s president attempted to consummate a purchase transaction with Berkshire Hathaway without the Commissioner’s approval, and then attempted to bypass the California insurance regulatory scheme by merging CIC I with the California Insurance Company (“CIC II”), a New Mexico-domesticated shell company formed by the president. The Superior Court granted the Commissioner’s conservatorship application and appointed the Commissioner as Conservator of CIC I. Applied Underwriters, of which the president is the Chief Executive Officer, and CIC II filed separate actions in federal court asserting causes of actions under Section 1983.
The district court dismissed both actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Ninth Circuit held that because important considerations of federalism were at stake, the district court’s reliance on Younger abstention as a ground for dismissal was in error. The court held that an insurance conservatorship is not sufficiently akin to criminal prosecution to bring it within the purview of what constitutes a similar, Younger-eligible “civil enforcement proceeding.”
The court held that dismissal of Appellants’ claims was warranted on account of the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule. Further, Appellants’ interests were well represented in the conservatorship action; they had an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges; they failed to sufficiently allege that the conservatorship action was brought in bad faith; they failed to demonstrate irreparable injury arising from extraordinary circumstances which might justify an exception to the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Federal Judicial Abstention. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Insurance Commissioner alleging various constitutional violations arising out of the conservatorship of the California Insurance Company, an insurance company in the State of California which partnered with appellants to sell, among other things, workers’ compensation insurance. The California Insurance Commissioner filed an ex parte conservation application in the Superior Court of San Mateo to place the California Insurance Company (CIC I) in a conservatorship after CIC I’s president, Steven Menzies, attempted to consummate a purchase transaction with Berkshire Hathaway without the Commissioner’s approval, and then attempted to bypass the California insurance regulatory scheme by merging CIC I with the California Insurance Company (CIC II), a New Mexico-domesticated shell company formed by Menzies. The Superior Court granted the Commissioner’s conservatorship application and appointed the Commissioner as Conservator of CIC I. After CIC I unsuccessfully challenged the bases of the conservatorship in state court, Applied Underwriters, of which Menzies is the Chief Executive Officer, and CIC II filed separate actions in federal court asserting causes of actions under § 1983. 4 APPLIED UNDERWRITERS V. LARA The district court dismissed both actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases under both the Younger abstention doctrine and the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule. The panel held that because important considerations of federalism were at stake, the district court’s reliance on Younger abstention as a ground for dismissal was in error. The panel held that an insurance conservatorship is not sufficiently akin to a criminal prosecution to bring it within the purview of the Supreme Court’s current understanding of what constitutes a similar, Younger-eligible “civil enforcement proceeding,” making the application of Younger improper in this case. The panel nevertheless held that dismissal of appellants’ claims was warranted on account of the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule, which holds that when a court of competent jurisdiction has obtained possession, custody, or control of particular property, that possession may not be disturbed by any other court. In applying the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule, the panel determined that the insurance conservatorship was an in rem proceeding and that the federal actions seeking to end the conservatorship’s control over CIC I’s assets were either in rem or quasi in rem proceedings. To the panel’s knowledge, this was the first case in this Court implicating the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule in connection with a § 1983 action. The panel noted that limitations on the exclusive jurisdiction rule may be necessary in unusual circumstances in which the adjudication of constitutional rights might be compromised but concluded that this case did not present any such circumstances. Thus, appellants’ interests were well represented in the conservatorship action; they had an APPLIED UNDERWRITERS V. LARA 5 adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges; they failed to sufficiently allege that the conservatorship action was brought in bad faith; and they failed to demonstrate irreparable injury arising from extraordinary circumstances which might justify an exception to the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule. Accordingly, federal judicial abstention due to the San Mateo Superior Court’s prior exclusive jurisdiction of the CIC I res was warranted. Concurring in the result, Judge Nguyen agreed that affirming the district court’s dismissal of these federal actions was warranted. But she wrote separately because, in her view, the district court correctly dismissed under Younger abstention. In reversing the district court’s dismissal on this ground, the majority held that insurance conservatorships were not the type of civil enforcement proceedings to which Younger abstention applies. Judge Nguyen wrote that to the contrary, insurance conservatorships embody all of the characteristics which define that category. Rather than applying the Younger doctrine, which was tailor-made for this situation, the majority instead attempted to modernize the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction. Because Judge Nguyen believed Younger abstention applied, she concurred only in the result. 6 APPLIED UNDERWRITERS V. LARA
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.