Print- Typically, in the context of parallel proceedings in the U.S. and elsewhere, U.S. courts are guided by the principles upon which international comity is based which include the proper respect for litigation in and the courts of a sovereign nation, fairness to litigants, and judicial efficiency. Turner Entm’t Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512, 1518 (11th Cir. 1994); United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Miller Features Syndicate, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 2d 198, 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). For a complete discussion of the issues surrounding a U.S. court's decision to abstain in the context of pending foreign proceedings, please consult Chapter 5 of this Guide.
- Proper consideration of these principles will require an evaluation of various factors, including the similarity of the parties, the similarity of the issues, the order in which the actions were filed, the adequacy of the alternative forum, the potential prejudice to either party, the convenience of the parties, the connection between the litigation and the U.S., and the connection between the litigation and the foreign jurisdiction. Finova Capital Corp. v. Ryan Helicopters U.S.A., Inc., 180 F.3d 896, 898-99 (7th Cir. 1999); Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 400, 454 (2d Cir. 2000).
- Practice Tip: The above list is not conclusive, and U.S. courts generally examine the “totality of the circumstances,” to determine whether the specific facts before it are sufficiently exceptional to justify abstention. Finova Capital Corp. v. Ryan Helicopters U.S.A., Inc., 180 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 1999).
- Ordinarily, parallel international proceedings do not automatically warrant dismissal of U.S. proceedings: “The mere existence of parallel foreign proceedings does not negate the district courts virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them. In fact, “exceptional circumstances” must exist in order to warrant dismissal in deference to a foreign action. Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int’l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted).
Practice Tip: International comity permits a U.S. district court to stay or dismiss an action over which it has subject matter jurisdiction in deference to a parallel proceeding outside the U.S. Gross v. German Found. Indus. Initiative, 456 F.3d 363, 392 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Generally, United States courts ... will defer to proceedings taking place in foreign countries”).