Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Carolyn Thomas

The Honorable Jerome Farris, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for*
the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0437n.06
Filed: July 22, 2008
No. 07-5878
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM. Johnson Controls, Inc., filed this action seeking to declare its former
employee, Carolyn Thomas, ineligible for workers’ compensation. The district court dismissed the
complaint because Thomas already initiated state-court proceedings seeking benefits from Johnson
Controls. We affirm the district court’s judgment but not its reasoning inasmuch as it grounded the
dismissal on Colorado River abstention when it should have invoked its Declaratory-Judgment-Act
discretion. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995) (holding that Colorado River
abstention is inapplicable to actions requesting declaratory relief).
It suffices for disposition of this appeal to say that the district court acted well within its

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-5878
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Thomas
- 2 -
discretion in declining to decide this issue of an employee’s right to state workers’ compensation
benefits. See id.; see also Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 554 (6th Cir. 2008). Such
a case has no business in federal court, particularly after the state court has reached a decision
inconsistent with the requested federal relief. Johnson Controls cited not one example of a federal
court entertaining the merits of a state workers’ compensation claim. And when confronted at oral
argument with the frivolous nature of this case—and worse yet, this appeal—appellant’s counsel
failed to offer any tenable justification, even when given the opportunity to defend against sua sponte
sanctions with a post-argument brief.
We affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint.

-- 2 of 2 --