FBOP v. PBGC Motion to Dismiss - Pension Benefit Guaranty ...

Case: 1:11-cv-02782 Document #: 20-1 Filed: 06/09/11 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:151later, Omega filed an infringement action in the District of Connecticut and moved to dismissTempco’s action, which the district court granted. 50The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Tempco’s declaratory judgment action servedno useful purpose, as Omega’s infringement action would resolve all the legal issues presented inTempco’s declaratory judgment action. 51Since Tempco’s declaratory judgment action served nouseful purpose, it was properly dismissed. 52Similarly, here, FBOP filed its DJA action one day after PBGC informed FBOP that itplanned to file an action to terminate the Plan. Count I involves the very same issues presentedin PBGC’s Amended Complaint, namely, whether the Plan should be terminated. And in a plantermination action under 29 U.S.C. § 1342, PBGC is the natural plaintiff. 53Moreover, FBOPcannot suffer from any uncertainty regarding the Plan because PBGC has sought an affirmativeremedy – termination of the Plan under ERISA § 4042(c).As in Tempco, the FBOP Complaint serves no useful purpose and will result in“piecemeal and duplicative litigation,” 54 wasting judicial time and resources. District courts—including this Court—should decline to hear actions filed “in an attempt to manipulate the5051525354Id. at 747. Id. at 749. Id. See 29 U.S.C. § 1342(c); see also Hyatt, 302 F.3d at 711. Med. Assurance, 610 F.3d at 379. 10