judgment action the Court should consider the following factors: (1) avoiding needless determination of state law issues; (2) discouraging litigants from filing declaratory actions as a means of forum shopping; and (3) avoiding duplica-tive litigation. Id. In addition, the Court should retain jurisdiction on a declaratory judgment action where it is necessary to avoid piecemeal litigation. Snodgrass v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.1998). The Court has already concluded that § 616D.030 does not preclude Plaintiffs state law claims, therefore, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim would result in piecemeal litigation. Because a declaratory action is a procedural remedy, the Court grants leav 956 P.2d 117, 119-20 (1998)
holding  616d030 barred employees actions where employees sued the state industrial insurance system alleging bad faith administration of their workers compensation claims holding that the peculiar risk doctrine has no application to employees of independent contractors whose claims fall within the workers compensation system holding  616d030 barred employees action where employee alleged the insurance carrier acted in bad faith in handling the claim recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim holding  616d030 did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a tortious discharge action for filing a workers compensation claim because the statutory scheme applies only to the administration of the act