Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Court Refuses to Dismiss Action for Declaratory Judgment
Related to Herbicide Use

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Dow Agrosciences v. Bates, No. CIV.A. 5:01-CV-331-C, 2002 WL 1205143 (N.D. Tex. 2002), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment in response to the defendants' demand letters for certain payments from the plaintiff arising from the defendants' use of herbicide produced and marketed by the plaintiff. The court held that it could properly exercise diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and that venue was appropriate.

Background

The plaintiff, Dow Agrosciences, produced and marketed the herbicide Strongarm, designed to control weeds in crops of peanuts. Id. at *1. After Strongarm was placed on the market, the plaintiff began to receive letters from consumers claiming that the herbicide was highly toxic and failed to control weed growth. Id. Additionally, the letters asserted that the plaintiff misrepresented Strongarm and accused it of false advertising, breach of warranty, and statutory claims for alleged deceptive and fraudulent trade practices. Id. Consumers demanded that the plaintiff pay "for certain damages, including consequential and incidental damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses." Id. In response, the plaintiff filed the instant action seeking declaratory relief. Id.

Arguments

The defendants motioned for summary judgment, alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(1) and improper venue pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(3). Id. at *2. The plaintiff, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), claimed that it had a good faith belief that the amount in controversy requirement was met and asserted that venue was appropriate. Id. at *3.

Analysis and Holdings

Because the Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff could not obtain declaratory relief until it had first established federal subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at *3. In the instant case, the plaintiff asserted that the court had diversity of citizenship federal jurisdiction, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), because the citizenships of the parties on both sides of the lawsuit were diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Id. The defendants asserted that the court did not have federal jurisdiction because some of the defendants' claims were less than $75,000. Id. After the court looked to the face of the plaintiff's pleading and added the attorney fees and punitive damages sought, it was satisfied that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Id.

The court then addressed the defendants' argument that the venue chosen by the plaintiff was improper. Id. at *4. The plaintiff, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1), stated that venue was appropriate in any judicial district where any defendant resided when all defendants resided in the same state. Id. Because all the defendants resided in Texas and at least one defendant resided in the Lubbock Division, the court held that venue was appropriate. Id.

Regarding the court's exercise of discretion to hear the case, the court explained, "[i]t is well settled in the Fifth Circuit that a district court has discretion over whether to decide or dismiss a declaratory judgment action." Id. at *5. The defendants requested that the court refuse to hear the case; however, the court decided, "[a]fter addressing the applicable law in light of the facts of this case, it [was] clear that abstention [was] inappropriate." Id.

The case was decided on March 12, 2002.