Houser v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company et al

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
THE HONORABLE BARBARA J.
HOUSER (RET.), in Her Capacity as
Trustee of the BSA Settlement Trust
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-1592-S
Vv.
ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.	
COR
CO
CO 6OR
608
CO
602
OO
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Order addresses Defendants National Surety Insurers’ and Allianz’s Motion to
Dismiss on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds or Dismiss or Stay on Abstention Grounds
(“Motion”) [ECF No. 538].! The Court has reviewed the Motion, Moving Defendants’
Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion (“Defendants’ Brief’) [ECF No. 538-1], Plaintiff
The Honorable Barbara J. Houser (Ret.), in Her Capacity as Trustee of the BSA Settlement Trust’s
Opposition to the Motion and Opposition to the Abstention Arguments Raised in the Undersigned
Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (“Response”) [ECF No. 558],
Moving Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of the Motion [ECF No. 574], and the applicable law.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This case is an insurance coverage dispute between Plaintiff, the Honorable Barbara J.
Houser (Ret.) in her capacity as Trustee of the Boy Scouts of America (“BSA”) Settlement Trust,
and dozens of insurance companies that allegedly issued liability policies covering BSA or BSA’s
local councils. Pl.’s First Am. Compl. (“Amended Complaint”) [ECF No. 516] ¥ 1. When faced
' Defendants National Surety Corporation, Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company, and Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) joined
the Motion.
Case 3:23-cv-01592-S Document 613 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

with mounting lawsuits seeking to hold it liable for alleged sexual abuse, BSA filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“Bankruptcy
Court”). /d. 9101. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming a plan of reorganization
(“Plan”), and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the Bankruptcy
Court’s order. /d. J 102. To resolve the abuse claims filed against BSA during its bankruptcy case,
the Plan created a settlement trust that assumed liability for claims asserted against BSA and BSA’s
local councils. Jd. § 104. The settlement trust received certain assets, including the rights under
BSA’s and the local councils’ insurance policies. Jd. { 106.
Plaintiff sued 83 insurers for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, bad faith, and
violations of the Texas Insurance Code. See generally id. Moving Defendants now move to dismiss
on forum non conveniens grounds or to stay or dismiss on Colorado River abstention grounds.
Mot. 1.
IL FORUM NON CONVENIENS
A, Applicable Law
“[FJederal courts have discretion to dismiss damages actions, in certain narrow
circumstances, under the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens.” Quackenbush y.
Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 721 (1996). A federal court may dismiss a case, even if jurisdiction
and proper venue are established, “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and
trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant out of all
proportion to plaintiffs convenience, or the chosen forum is inappropriate because of
considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems.” Sinochem Int’l Co. v.
Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 429 (2007) (cleaned up). The forum non conveniens
doctrine “has continuing application in federal courts only in cases where the alternative forum is
Case 3:23-cv-01592-S Document 613 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

abroad and perhaps in rare instances where a state or territorial court serves litigational
convenience best.” Jd. at 430 (cleaned up). “Sinochem, however, does not explain what these ‘rare
instances’ are.” Ins. Safety Consultants LLC v. Nugent, No. 3:15-CV-2183-B, 2017 WL 735460,
at *5 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2017) (citation omitted).
“With that in mind, [a] defendant invoking forum non conveniens ordinarily bears a heavy
burden in opposing the plaintiff's chosen forum.” Jd. at *3 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
To meet that burden, a defendant must demonstrate that: “(1) a viable alternative forum exists; and
(2) the balance ofa series of public and private interest factors favors trial in the alternative forum.”
Id. (citation omitted).
At the first step, the court must “assess whether an alternate forum is both available and
adequate.” Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 221 (5th Cir. 2000). A forum is
available if “the entire case and all parties can come within the jurisdiction of that forum,” and it
is adequate if “the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly.” Jd. (quoting In
re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147, 1165 (Sth Cir. 1987)).
At the second step, the court must balance the public and private interest factors, giving
due deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. Jd. at 221-22. The private interest factors include:
(1) the “relative ease of access to sources of proof”; (2) “availability of compulsory process for
attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses”; (3) “[the]
possibility of view[ing] [the] premises, if [doing so] would be appropriate to the action”; and
(4) “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Piper
Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981) (citation omitted). The public interest factors
include: (1) “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion”; (2) “the ‘local interest
29,
in having localized controversies decided at home’”; (3) “the interest in having the trial of a
Case 3:23-cv-01592-S Document 613 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action”; (4) “the
avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in application of foreign law”; and
(5) “the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.” Jd. (citation
omitted).
B. Analysis
Moving Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed in favor of an earlier-filed
action in Illinois state court, National Surety Corp. v. Boy Scouts of America, et al., No. 2017-CH-
014975 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.), Defs.’ Br. 1. They argue that the Illinois court is an available and
adequate forum and that each of the public and private interest factors that applies weighs either
in favor of the Illinois action or neutrally. See generally Defs.’ Br. Piaintiff responds that Moving
Defendants do not attempt to argue that this is one of the “rare instances” that would allow the
Court to dismiss on FNC grounds. Resp. 8-10 (citing, among other sources, Sinochem Int'l Co.,
549 US. at 430). Plaintiff also argues that the Illinois court is not an available forum and that the
factors weigh against adjudication in Illinois. Id. at 11-19.
Moving Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate that the Illinois state court is
an available forum. A forum is available if “all parties can come within the jurisdiction of that
forum.” Alpine View, 205 F.3d at 221 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). There are 83 insurer
defendants named in the operative complaint. See Am. Compl. Moving Defendants assert that 18
of those defendants are incorporated or principally located in Illinois and that the “Illinois state
court already assumed jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute.” Defs.’ Br. 12-13. But the complaint
in the Illinois proceeding includes just 21 insurers as parties, and only 12 of those are also parties
to this suit. See Mot. Ex. 1 [ECF No. 538-2] A002-A003. Moving Defendants therefore have not
Case 3:23-cv-01592-S Document 613 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

shown that all parties could come within the jurisdiction of the Illinois court, so the Motion fails
at the first step of the forum non conveniens analysis.
Even if Moving Defendants could show that the Illinois court is an available and adequate
forum, they still could not show that the public and private interest factors weigh in favor of
dismissal. The Court finds that the private interest factors do not weigh in favor of dismissal
because many sources of proof will be located in Texas, where BSA has had its headquarters for
nearly fifty years, Am. Compl. | 109, and because there are no practical problems that would
prevent an expeditious resolution by this Court. The public interest factors do not weigh in favor
of dismissal because Moving Defendants have not shown that this Court is more congested than
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; Texas law is likely to apply
to many of the issues in this case”; and there will be no unfair burden to Texas jurors.
III. COLORADO RIVER ABSTENTION
A, Applicable Law
Under the doctrine established by Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), a federal court “may abstain from a case that is part of parallel,
duplicative litigation ... only under ‘exceptional’ circumstances.” Kelly Inv., Inc. v. Cont’l
Common Corp., 315 F.3d 494, 497 (Sth Cir. 2002). Two suits are parallel when they have “the
same parties and the same issues.” Stewart v. W. Heritage Ins. Co., 438 F.3d 488, 491 (Sth Cir.
2006) (citation omitted). If there are parallel suits, the federal court considers six factors to
determine whether “exceptional circumstances” warranting abstention exist: (1) the assumption by
either the state or federal court of jurisdiction over a res; (2) the relative inconvenience of the fora;
(3) avoidance of piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the
2 Indeed, Moving Defendants recently argued that Texas law applies to the determination of a central issue
in this case. See Undersigned Defs.’ Mem. in Resp. to the Ct.’s Dec. 19, 2025 Order [ECF No. 602].
Case 3:23-cv-01592-S Document 613 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

concurrent fora; (5) the extent that federal law provides the rules of decision on the merits; and
(6) the adequacy of the state proceedings in protecting the rights of the party invoking federal
jurisdiction. Jd. “[T]he decision whether to dismiss a federal action because of parallel state-court
litigation does not rest on a mechanical checklist, but on a careful balancing of the important
factors as they apply in a given case, with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of
jurisdiction.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 16 (1983).
B. Analysis
Moving Defendants argue that Colorado River abstention is warranted here because there
is parallel litigation and the five factors that apply all favor abstention. Plaintiff responds that the
two cases are not parallel and that the five applicable factors weigh against abstention.
The Court finds that this case and the [linois action are not parallel. As already noted, the
Itinois action includes only 12 of the 83 insurers originally named in this suit. The issues are also
different. The Illinois action addresses certain insurers’ obligations to pay for claims of abuse by
a single alleged perpetrator over a period of nine years. See Mot. Ex. 1 A003 §f 2-3. But this case
addresses the insurers’ coverage obligations for tens of thousands of abuse claims spanning
decades. See Am. Compl. {ff 103, 109-10.
Because the cases are not parallel, the Court need not consider the Colorado River factors.
Case 3:23-cv-01592-S Document 613 Filed 02/02/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants National Surety Insurers’ and
Allianz’s Motion to Dismiss on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds or Dismiss or Stay on Abstention
Grounds [ECF No. 538].
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED February 2, 2026.
Lt
	Qe—§
KAREN GREN SCHOLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-01592-S Document 613 Filed 02/02/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>