New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

International Comity as Ground to Stay or Dismiss a U.S. Lawsuit in Deference to a Foreign Action — Foreign Bankruptcy Generally Entitled to Comity

Download PDF

From Curran v. Hindu Credit Union Operative Soc’y Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32148 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2011):

International comity is "the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws." See Turner Entertainment Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512, 1519 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1895)).

The doctrine of international comity may be applied retrospectively or prospectively. A court conducts a prospective analysis when considering whether to dismiss or stay a domestic action where a judgment has not yet been reached in the foreign forum. In analyzing a case for prospective application of international comity, federal courts "evaluate several factors, including the strength of the United States' interest in using a federal forum, the strength of the foreign governments' interests, and the adequacy of the alternative forum." Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). A court's determination of the last factor — the adequacy of the alternative forum — is informed by a forum non conveniens analysis. Id.

Thus, although federal courts have a "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise their jurisdiction, in some private international disputes it is "prudent and just" for a federal court to abstain from the exercise of its jurisdiction because of concurrent proceedings in another jurisdiction. ***. A court has the power to dismiss or stay a case based on abstention principles regardless of whether the relief sought is equitable or legal and non-equitable. See Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1222 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding, as a matter of first impression, that legal, non-equitable claims may be dismissed or stayed on grounds of international comity abstention).

In particular, the existence of foreign bankruptcy proceedings has been recognized as "one discrete category of foreign litigation that generally requires the dismissal of parallel district court actions." Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int'l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that it is "the general practice of American courts [to] regularly defer[] to such actions"). Abstention where a foreign bankruptcy proceeding is pending reflects the recognition that "a foreign nation's interest in the equitable and orderly distribution of a debtor's property is an interest deserving of particular respect and deference." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A U.S. court will therefore afford comity to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding as long as the proceeding abides by "fundamental standards of procedural fairness." Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Linter Group Ltd., 996 F.2d 996, 999 (2d Cir. 1993).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice