Conkwright v. Forefront Dermatology, S.C. et al, No. 2:2024cv00249 - Document 21 (E.D. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis on 5/30/24. (mrees, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Conkwright v. Forefront Dermatology, S.C. et al Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CAROLINE CONKWRIGHT, Plaintiff, Civil V. FOREFRONT DERMATOLOGY, S. C and FOREFRONT MANAGEMENT, No. 2:24cv249 / LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM This matter ("Plaintiff") ECF No. is before the ORDER Court on Caroline Motion for Remand to Virginia Beach Circuit Court. Because the facts and legal questions are adequately 7. presented in the motion and subsequent briefs, would not hearing aid in the decisional is Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. March Declaratory Forefront Circuit 1, Judgment" at declaration Employment ECF Forefront that the Agreement // 7 . or filed finds stated Plaintiff, as a in that a below. Complaint of she S.C. Virginia a physician's March Dermatology Agreement") w Dermatology, ("Defendants") Forefront \\ reasons Forefront Dermatology w Court Background Plaintiff LLC No. the and oral argument Id. against Management, Court. employed 2024, the process, For unnecessary. A. On Conkwright's for and Beach assistant 2024, Agreement seeks ft a ("the signed in December of Dockets.Justia.com 2020 is not enforceable not complete Agreement is the \\ a contract found to be a requests post-employment fully Removal April from district filed Motion Removal does ECF 7, remand, 16 . the court. a No. 17, for not at ECF ECF Beach 1, Remand, 15, and federal remove did If the 11. and enforceable included // Circuit federal Court One 1-6. filed that a to week Notice this later. in subject matter filed a federal Plaintiff of jurisdiction. filed a responsive brief Plaintiff of Notice Defendants' opposing reply brief, ECF No. a case removal to Legal Standard statute federal allows a if state court the state have been originally filed in federal district 1441; 186 parties The matter is thus fully briefed and ripe for disposition. The § at restrictions timely arguing Defendants B. to at establish 2-3. No. No. \s Id. Defendants Virginia 1-1, executed competitive 2024, No. the a declaration establishing that at the Agreement are unenforceable. On because ECF // contract process. Plaintiff contract, least the as see (4th Darcangelo v. Cir. jurisdiction is Columbia Organic Because removal concerns, 2002). on the Chems. Verizon The burden party Co. , 29 jurisdiction district courts Commc'ns, of seeking F.3d must defendant action court. Inc., 28 292 151 (4th could U.S.C. F.3d establishing Cir. construe 181, federal Mulcahey significant strictly 2 court removal. 148, raises court v. 1994). federalism removal jurisdiction, necessary. Federal action. 394, 399 {4th Cir. 1999). the party jurisdiction. U.S.C. § Inc, must § Arbaugh 1331. City v. of or to u a Y federal district court & H Frederick, Md., 191 F.3d to establish subject matter invoke a federal diversity demonstrate v. jurisdiction. subject matter jurisdiction over seeking 1332 limited to Generally, either U.S.C. of removed court has Pinkley, jurisdiction courts are action may be only if the district such Diversity Jurisdiction courts an Therefore, 28 is Id. 1. under remand and if federal jurisdiction is doubtful. federal Corp. , of citizenship question 546 court's U.S. under // 500, // 28 513-14 (2006). Defendants Here, diversity courts where of diversity matter in $75,000, exclusive citizens of The a from citizen of and do Delaware. the parties' of not No. States dispute Virginia, ECF their Notice 1, 2. jurisdiction interest Defendants' See ECF controversy different parties different premised citizenship. possess the have at over w all sum costs, and is 28 ft that and Defendants No. 1, 3; § value . citizenship citizenship — Plaintiff are ECF citizens No. 15, at of 1332 (a) (1) . of 4. dispute centers on whether Defendants have 3 actions between U.S.C. Plaintiff's respective or on district civil the . Removal Federal exceeds and at of is is Wisconsin Rather, satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, 28 $75,000. U.S.C. 290 has filed an action for declaratory the amount-in-controversy must be assessed differently judgment, it 1332(a). Plaintiff Because than § is F.3d in actions 699, 710 Dixon seeking money damages. (4th Cir. 2002). By way of V. Edwards, background, granting declaratory judgment, a reviewing court w when may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration. Judgment Act does jurisdiction, itself See that Skelly 28 //1 and the U.S.C. not thus create a diversity Oil Co. In determining (1950). diversity-based v. litigation. by matter // measuring rather than court the looking Declaratory a must basis still prerequisites Petroleum whether The independent an jurisdiction reviewing a declaratory judgment controversy 2201(a). reviewing Phillips subject § Co., 339 party jurisdiction. U.S. has a for satisfy are met. 667, 671 established district court action ascertains the amount value of to quantum of the the obj ect in of the damages pled ^ Federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and See generally Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. federal procedural law. 64 (1938) . The Declaratory Judgment Act is a procedural statute that Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., creates no substantive rights. 339 U.S. 667, Declaratory 671 Judgment (1950) . Act is Therefore, applicable as to federal the procedural instant law, the diversity-based action. Erie R. Co., 304 U.S. at 78; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 736 F.3d 255, 261 n.3 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that the Fourth Circuit treat[s] a state court declaratory action that is 28 U.S.C. removed as invoking the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, § 22 01."); see Jones v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 301 F. App'x 276, 281 n.l2 (4th Cir. 2008). The substantive law underlying Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief, such as contract law, remains Virginia law. Gasperini V. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996). 4 in a complaint. Hunt Common, 432 U.S. 333, 347 settled that test for the the litigation [a] judgment Gov't Employees Apple Fourth Advertising Circuit, w it is determining the value of the object of n produce. Ins. State In the (1977). the pecuniary IS would Washington V. Co. / v. result Dixon, n Daily, to either 290 327 F.3d F.2d at party which 710 569 568 (quoting (4th Cir. 1964) ) . When applying the to look to the underlying rights 'calculate either party. the t No. I:08cv624, 17, 2009) U.S. known as Neaves, Va. Oct. potential pecuniary Wood V. // 2009 U.S. LEXIS 13664, Dist. at the No. 24, 2017); addition Declaratory 2017 Daily, to Judgment only jurisdiction. Circuit when // cautions that of the [a] *8 Inc, U.S. v. at *10 Tong, (M.D.N.C. No. July a judgment approach. judgment Dist. Sys., LEXIS to Inc., (M.D.N.C. June I:03cv420, 2004 2004)). This 15, on either party is O'Sullivan // litigants 176967, Films at *14 v. (W.D. Declaratory Judgment Act requiring Act there 28 of 327 F.2d at 569. subject provides exercise jurisdiction over relief impact LEXIS 51517, "either-viewpoint 5:17cv31, reviewing courts Dynamics Advanced Info. the pecuniary impact of 2. In Gen. test, and obligations (quoting Market Am,, Dist. review of "pecuniary result" that a plaintiff's is U.S.C. matter an § district actual 2201(a). courts, 5 a jurisdiction, reviewing request court the may for declaratory controversy Moreover, when reviewing within the its Fourth complaints pursuant to discretion Equip. N. the Declaratory in [their] Am., Inc, exercise 2004) the actual CLM v. (internal Cir. controversy prudential" inquiry, court Act, not \\ jurisdiction. Equip. Co. , and 386 abuse 581, entertain in the Id. at implicates a bounds. tt While plaintiff's a of its Such district discretion, discretion, court \\ a district jurisdiction, judgment Id. // and (4th Explaining this prudential 594. exercise action. 592 the latter abuse-of-discretion inquiry is declaratory the Constr. omitted). the Fourth Circuit has affirmed that even if nonetheless, [their] Volvo n F.3d citations requirement ft in nature. possesses without of quotations standing to bring suit, \\ Judgment >\ must it decline however, have may is 'good to "not reason' for declining to exercise its declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Cont'l Cir. 1994)). on the merits Cas. Co. end, v. Fuscardo, To that a district of a declaratory judgment 35 F.3d 963, 965 tt (4th is obliged to rule action when declaratory court relief will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue. Quarles, 92 F.2d 321, 325 Id. // (4th Cir. C, With addresses Plaintiff's Act's this legal whether claim, it and (quoting Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. 1937)). Discussion background in has subject then considers mind. matter the the Court jurisdiction Declaratory first over Judgment additional jurisdictional requirements — the presence of 6 an actual controversy Volvo Constr. and the prudence of exercising jurisdiction. t! Equip., 386 F.3d at 592. 1. Plaintiff Diversity Jurisdiction that argues amount-in-controversy ECF No. basis 16, for at Defendants requirement Plaintiff 3. have violated her maintains restrictive satisfied diversity for that jurisdiction. Defendants' the covenants, economic damage Defendants would incur exceeds $75,000 speculative ECF No. As 1, to satisfy at 3/ ECF No. Agreement alternatively, restrictions that at \\ if amount of is too tt requirement. 3. not least are an the enforceable contract, post-employment unenforceable. ECF or competitive No. 1-1, at 11. the pecuniary result of such a declaration on either party determines the Consistent with notice Defendants to employment Dixon, amount-in-controversy. this and has request that for she relief. intends advised Defendants W 290 at 8. Therefore, Employment Agreement, the Agreement, F.3d at 711 by testing Plaintiff to leave that she that legal has placed the and her employment, (noting the in issue. a complaint seeking 7 F.3d at 710. has provided Plaintiff her did that she had any competitive restrictions in place. 1, stated Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her IS at therein amount-in-controversy 16, summarized above. Employment Thus, the the of Removal — that such jurisdiction in its Notice Plaintiff not It full-time not ECF validity believe No. of 1- the monetary value of Id.; see Dixon, 290 a declaration that an employment contract is unenforceable places the \\ employment contract and its monetary value in issue."). Addressing state in the their restrictive value Notice of of covenants Plaintiff's Removal (by, for that if violated Plaintiff engaging example, Defendants employment, her in competitive employment) , Defendants would incur economic damage in excess of $75,000. through ECF the No. 1, submission Forefront Management, Forefront Dermatology from the services $487,194 and cost at 2-3. at in of a sworn Gregory \\ Ms. collected compensation" for Accordingly, declaration that a who avers approximately provided. year, total occasion Defendants Employment reason Agreement, Plaintiff's that or consequent the the from of covenants Defendants million benefits No. 15-1, Plaintiff's $545,387 ECF of 2023, Plaintiff ECF from invalidation restrictive departure paid that $1,407 million in pecuniary impact to Defendants. 6 . in that $545,387. anywhere claim a manager at $58,193 estimate this $1,407 and // plus of Defendants would substantiate declaration by Diment, Conkwright reimbursement. requested Defendants 3. No. 15, therein, employ, Forefront Dermatology accrued directly from Plaintiff's 2023. ECF No. Plaintiff pecuniary Defendants' impact 15, at estimate her is and could that services 6. challenges of at Plaintiff's eliminate all or part of the $1,407 million in "collections" in to Defendants' requested grounded in 8 calculation declaration, impermissible of the arguing that speculation. ECF No. 16, at Defendants However, 6. demonstrate by a preponderance of in-controversy Francis And v. the Allstate sufficient 2017 U.S. 147 F. Ins. submission the economic of Dist. Supp. the LEXIS 2d 481, Defendants $1,407 provided 2023, 1, at u in and 362, or 369 176967, take at generated may \\ Defendants if some the from McCoy v. of her In 2001). to by the of 2023 See requirement. value Erie Ins. were 410 employee $1,407 to Absolute F. Supp. before 669 Defendants 15- competitive or their in No. revenue departure, collections for amount-in-controversy Tools, 665, Forefront ECF n profits the Mach. 2d the Conkwright leave with her. million satisfies collected Ms. post-employment through Co., such declaration. services patients of 0'Sullivan, Dermatology the Plaintiff measured generation in Inc., 2013). attesting See standard. Forefront million be directly Plaintiff's threshold. {4th Cir. declaration *15-16; (S.D.W. Va. and Because 3. to the amount that lose all or a portion of those collections. restrictions Tools, F.3d affidavit that approximately would 709 obligated jurisdictional preponderance 493 state Dermatology an evidence $75,000 Co., only impact of a potential contract breach is generally to meet n the exceeds the are Inc, (N.D. v. Ohio Clancy 2005) Mach. (finding that the value of post-employment competitive restrictions can be measured by \v the profits earned by the employer on business generated by the employee during the period immediately preceding his termination."); accord FirstEnergy 9 Sols. Corp. v. Flerick, 521 Fed. Appx. controversy agreement 521, 525 satisfied generated {6th when over Cir. 2013) employee $300,000 (finding subject in gross to a amount in non-compete profits in the year prior to his resignation). Moreover, paid at least Defendants does that not $487,194 she believe Defendants that since it is also uncontroverted that Plaintiff have by plans she Defendants to leave bound is demonstrated Plaintiff's by requested in their by 2023, full-time competitive a preponderance declaration (finding prospective services contract the evidence result 290 in the a F.3d at satisfied when invalidation would deprive it had valued at over and restrictions, Dixon, amount-in-controversy requirement informed employ, of would pecuniary loss of over $75,000 to Defendants. 711 has was a employer of $75,000) In addition to the potential pecuniary impact on Defendants, the pecuniary for occasion under the at 711; result Plaintiff that also Fourth Circuit's Daily, 327 F.2d at the requested satisfies the "either party" 569. A declaration would amount-in-controversy rule. declaration Dixon, that 290 F.3d Plaintiff's 2 Plaintiff's objections as to the speculative nature of Defendants' amount-in-controversy argument are ultimately unpersuasive. ECF No. 16, at 6. While it is true that there is a prudential limit on the degree of speculation that a reviewing court will tolerate in ascertaining an amount-in-controversy, the inquiry necessarily entails some informed forecasting — the Court must look to the pecuniary result that the requested declaration would produce if granted. Dixon, 290 F.3d at 710; Daily, 327 F.2d at 569; see also Tong, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13664, at *13-14 ("Defendants have offered little additional evidence to support the contents of their affidavits. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that the affidavits are largely unrefuted by any evidence presented by Plaintiff, such affidavits are sufficient to satisfy the Defendant's burden of proof."). 10 employment agreement Defendants, Forefront U.S. non-binding IS would, according to bring an end to Plaintiff's current compensation from ECF Dermatology. Dist. LEXIS 176967, No. at 15, at 6, (finding *17 8/ O' Sullivan, that the 2017 prospective termination of an employment contract with a salary over $75,000 satisfies attempts the to combat pointing out \\ amount-in-controversy that this she requirement). amount-in-controversy still works at Plaintiff calculation by Forefront Dermatology and there is no explanation as to how any possible loss of income by is [Plaintiff] Plaintiff relevant fails to to this engage amount-in-controversy in with a case. ECF f/ the test declaratory No. for 16, at 7. But ascertaining judgment action. the which includes the salary that would be lost if an employment contract were invalidated.^ have demonstrated Dixon, 290 by preponderance a F.3d at 710-11. of Thus, the Defendants evidence that 3 Plaintiff has cited many cases in notional support of her motion, none of which persuade the Court that remand is appropriate here. Plaintiff relies heavily on Kirklen v. Buffalo Wild Wing Int'l, Inc., a case where a motion to remand was granted. No. 3:18cv468, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66353, at *6 (W.D.N.C. April 17, 2019). There, the defendant's main argument for having met the amount-in-controversy requirement was that other cases had yielded trial awards over $75,000, failing to even explain how the "other cases" were factually similar. Id. Therefore, the Kirklen Court remanded the case given the mere "conjecture" offered by the defendant. Id. In contrast, here, Defendants have provided a sworn declaration corroborating the stated value of Plaintiff's employment agreement. Separately, Plaintiff cites ECR Software Corp. v. Zaldivar for the proposition that a thorough argument for removal must be made by a defendant in the notice of removal (W.D.N.C. itself. April 23, 5:12CV39, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57997, at *22-23 But the ECR Software defendant failed to make 2013). any mention of diversity jurisdiction in its notice of removal. Id. Here, Defendants' Notice of Removal both asserts diversity jurisdiction and explains the specific rationale for finding an amount-in-controversy over $75,000. ECF No. 1, at 2. 11 Plaintiff has stated should the figure compensation her requested intention declaration under of permitted such to thousands of Defendants. a Id. for and facts their granted, 15-1, at are was and Plaintiff's SIX would Indeed, 3. Plaintiff that employ, agreement personally in revenue These leave employment declaration. compete dollars be ECF No. following her departure. issuance the to would collect cease after be the legally hundreds of previously collected by sufficient to demonstrate an amount-in-controversy of well over $75,000.'^ In summary, the viewpoint when considering the amount-in-controversy from of either the party. Court finds that Defendants have satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.^ Separate from Plaintiff's argument that Defendants have not satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff claims that Section 9.6 of the Employment Agreement, entitled "Venue/Jurisdiction," precludes this Court's exercise of jurisdiction over her declaratory judgment action. See are ECF No. 16, at 10. Plaintiff those listed in Section 9.6. insists that the only venues permitted But Plaintiff has placed in question whether the Employment Agreement is at all legally enforceable as a contract, so it would not be appropriate for the Court to apply a provision in that Agreement at this stage. ECF No. 1-1, at 8. That said, the Court notes that the "Venue/Jurisdiction" provision at issue appears on its face to be permissive, providing that the parties agree that the "non-exclusive forum for any litigation will be . . . the Virginia Beach Circuity [sic] Court in Virginia and hereby expressly consent to the jurisdiction of such courts." ECF No. 1-1, at 27 {emphasis added); IntraComm, Inc, v. Bajaj, 492 F.3d 285, 294 (4th Cir. 2007) ("A general maxim in interpreting forum-selection clauses is that an agreement conferring jurisdiction in one forum will not be interpreted as excluding jurisdiction elsewhere unless it contains specific language of exclusion."). ^ Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is declined. Section 1447(c) provides that an "order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a order the payment of result of attorneys' the removal," fees. 12 and the Court here declines to 2. Since the Declaratory Judgment Act Defendants Court must next have demonstrated address whether Plaintiff's with the jurisdictional requirements of Act, U.S.C. 28 Plaintiff's § 2201 (a) . action presents diversity jurisdiction, action the Declaratory Judgment The Court first an actual addresses controversy. turns to the propriety of exercising jurisdiction. The actual controversy requirement derives of W the United States judicial Power U.S. Const, art. declaratory provision extend to all the issuance of 549 U.S. 118, must that controversy of a \\ through real a and Indeed, of the "Controversies. an action n for that having Inc, is adverse to n v. there a legal warrant Genentech, the Inc., the dispute before a reviewing substantial decree that III case-or-controversy reality Medimmune, Id. of show and then from Article and context parties immediacy declaration. be the whether and n provides "Cases" plaintiff between (2007). which Constitution's a sufficient 127 In 2 . Ill, requires interests, relief Constitution, j udgment, substantial court shall n comports a and // "admi[t] conclusive of specific character. as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. In order plaintiff must components: suffered an \\ to satisfy possess (1) actual the Id. tt case-or-controversy standing the plaintiff or threatened to sue. must injury 13 which consists allege that requirement, that is not he of or a three she conjectural or (2) hypothetical, challenged conduct; to redress the 2006) Cir. 560-61 and injury. injury must be fairly traceable Miller V. tt to the a favorable decision must be likely (3) (citing Lujan v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312, Defenders of Wildlife, 316 (4th 504 U.S. 555, (1992)) Applying Plaintiff current suggests the the the has foregoing notified Defendants employment an fact of arrangement. "immediacy and reality" that employment principles Plaintiff arrangement tried to to her intention ECF No. to the u come with Forefront Plaintiff's 1-1, to at action. leave This 9. instant dispute, to an her amicable and post- to no avail Dermatology, // suggests a substantial controversy underlying Plaintiff's action. Medimmune, 549 U.S. parties plainly have believes she Employment view the that fact is not Agreement, such that at 127; "adverse ECF No. covenants Plaintiff position bind u w minimize the nature in // in conflict Plaintiff. the ECF No. // which the Plaintiff in the Defendants' 15, at 3. And from engaging Employment Agreement does controversy actively contested legal rights. that with has purportedly refrained of Indeed, 9. restrictive covenants in any conduct which could violate the not at legal interests subject to the a 1-1, n here so long as include there are whether the ® In order to avoid premature litigation, a declaratory action must also be that is, the ripe controversy is presented in clean-cut and concrete form, Miller, 462 F.3d at 316; O'Sullivan, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176967, at *7. As recognized by the Fourth Circuit, the ripeness inquiry is similar to standing analysis. Miller, 462 F.3d at 319 (citing Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 2.4 (4th ed. 2003)). 14 Employment Wellness Dist. the Agreement Grp., LLC v. LEXIS 61073, Court King at *13 concludes injury that is not an constitutes Bio. Inc., (W.D.N.C. that has alleged Miller, 2014 2014). or hypothetical. first element of standing analysis. contract.”^ l:12cv281, No. April 30, Plaintiff conjectural enforceable Therefore, a w threatened satisfying n 462 U.S. F.3d at the 316. Considering the traceability and redressability requirements for standing, Agreement a favorable declaration unenforceable or finding the declaration a Employment more narrowly nullifying the restrictive covenants — would redress Plaintiff's prospective injury associated with covenant). And economic in light of issue uncertainty, Quarles, 92 financial of the an n tf so F.2d 321, legal costs restrictive instant briefing outlining as Constr. 325). clarify [] to to legal terminate and settl [e] the legal afford relief and controversy giving rise Equip., As a 386 result, F.3d the is issues presented and \\ the it Plaintiff's Employment Agreement, insecurity, Volvo and enforceable for the Court to rule on the in proceeding. the violation Employment Agreement relations the the implications of appropriate by the {incurring at 594 Court from to the (quoting finds that Plaintiff states in her reply brief that "a desire to avoid breaching any potentially binding contractual commitments is what caused [Plaintiff] to and avers in a declaration file her Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, that she has not attempted to solicit any of Forefront Dermatology's The ECF No. 16, at 3; ECF No. 16-1, at 2. current or former patients, actual controversy requirement, however, does not require a plaintiff to take affirmative steps towards violating her legal obligations in order to Medimmune, 549 U.S. at 134. bring a declaratory action. 15 there is Act an "actual because the (financial and challenged conduct and the controversy" prospective professional (the restrictive enforcement covenants remedy, restrictive covenants, would F.3d at Finally, inquiry that the at see, Supp. 3d Dist. LEXIS that of the traceable Employment 28 U.S.C. declaration redress propriety Volvo the 635, they indicates § 2201 (a) . nullifying injury. Equip. , 386 F.3d at // over 594. indicated that Domtar 639-40 61073, believe set that Films, AI Inc, (E.D.N.C. Here, Plaintiff is forth the Defendants in would v. U.S. J.D. 2014); *13. at 2017 it will To Dist. Wellness subject to the to enforce Therefore, the Court finds that it Equip., 386 F.3d at 592. 16 43 2014 F. U.S. clearly stated provisions Agreement, such is 176967, Ltd., Grp., have Employment seek LEXIS Irving. Defendants as seek to enforce and which restrictions ECF No. appropriate exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaratory action. Constr. the jurisdiction against Plaintiff in the event of an alleged breach. 3. the Agreement threatened exercising of Constr. O'Sullivan e.g. , restrictions at to the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, an employer has covenant. *8; fairly 316. claim. adjudication of that is Plaintiff by a declaratory action is generally a proper vehicle for end. long as alleged the Court has engaged in the requisite "prudential into Plaintiff's a Judgment Declaratory therein). requested 462 the injury costs) Plaintiff's Miller, under 15, to Volvo D. For Remand is The Order the to IT reasons Conclusion explained Plaintiff's above, for DENIED. Clerk all IS is REQUESTED counsel SO of to send a copy of this Memorandum record. ORDERED. Mark CHIEF Norfolk, Motion Virginia May 30 , 2024 17 UNITED S. STATES Davis DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
