District Court Grants Air Senegal Motion to Stay Parallel Suit
March 11, 2026
Sometimes you have to choose one court. In SASOF III (A2) Aviation Ireland DAC v. Air Senegal S.A., the plaintiffs, airline leasing companies, sued Air Senegal for non-payment of rent in Dakar, Senegal. Three months later, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar suit in New York. On January 30, 2026, Magistrate Judge Stewart Aaron stayed the New York action, finding that the suits were parallel and that the relevant factors for abstention weighed in favor of a stay.
The case provides a good illustration of how parallel proceedings abstention works. It also shows that U.S. courts are generally willing to stay a parallel action when it is filed by the same parties.
Parallel Proceedings Abstention
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never blessed it, many circuits have adopted a doctrine of parallel proceedings abstention, including the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. (The Ninth Circuit has also adopted a broader doctrine of foreign policy abstention that does not require a parallel proceeding.)
Fundamentally, parallel proceedings abstention is an extension to the international context of Colorado River abstention, which allows federal court to abstain in favor of parallel state court proceedings. Given the “the virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them,” such abstention requires not only the existence of parallel proceedings but also “exceptional circumstances” warranting abstention.
In Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada v. Century International Arms, Inc. (2006), the Second Circuit instructed district courts to consider:
the similarity of the parties, the similarity of the issues, the order in which the actions were filed, the adequacy of the alternate forum, the potential prejudice to either party, the convenience of the parties, the connection between the litigation and the United States, and the connection between the litigation and the foreign jurisdiction.
The first two factors—similarity of parties and similarity of issues—determine whether the foreign-court proceeding is parallel to federal-court proceeding and should be treated as a precondition. Royal & Sun Alliance makes clear that “the mere existence of an adequate parallel action, by itself, does not justify” abstention.
The Planes
In 2018, Air Senegal leased two Airbus A319s from SASOF. The next year, it leased two more A319s from Aergen 20 and Aergen 21. In February 2024, Air Senegal stopped making rental payments on all of the aircraft.
The lease agreements contained identical choice of court agreements consenting to jurisdiction in state and federal courts in New York. Thus, plaintiffs could have sued Air Senegal for the unpaid rent in New York. General Obligations Law 5-1402 allows parties to choose New York courts for contracts that are governed by New York law and involve $1 million or more. But with respect to claims by the lessors, the choice of court agreements were non-exclusive, allowing the lessors to bring claims in other courts if they wished.
That is what they did here. In March 2025, SASOF and Aergen 20 (also representing Aergen’s 21’s interests) sued Air Senegal in Dakar Commercial Court. Initially, the plaintiffs had some success. The Senegal court ordered the planes seized and granted an order for unpaid rent. But the seizure was not carried out and the order for rent was challenged. Air Senegal eventually surrendered the planes after the plaintiffs filed a criminal action.
In June 2025, apparently dissatisfied with the progress of their actions in Senegal, the plaintiffs sued Air Senegal in New York state court. Air Senegal removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship and then moved to stay the New York suit in favor of the proceedings in Senegal.
The Factors
Judge Aaron first considered whether the proceeding in New York was parallel to the one in Senegal. To be parallel, he noted, the two suits need not be identical but must be “substantially similar.” Judge Aaron found that they were. The proceedings involved the same four planes and the same four lease agreements. Both sought payment of unpaid rent. Although Aergen 21 was not technically a party to the Senegal action, its interests were represented there by another one of the plaintiffs.
Turning to the other factors, Judge Aaron noted that the plaintiffs filed first in Senegal, which weighed in favor of abstention. Senegal was also an adequate forum, he found. “Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves commenced multiple actions in Senegal regarding the Agreements and the Aircraft,” he reasoned, “thus implicitly acknowledging the adequacy of the forum.”
Plaintiffs argued that they would be severely prejudiced by a stay but, again, the decision to file first in Senegal cut against them. “Plaintiffs had the choice to file their action in New York, pursuant to … the Agreements, and decided to file in Senegal instead,” Judge Aaron noted. “Plaintiffs cannot be prejudiced by their own choice of forum.” With respect to convenience, he continued, “it is material that Plaintiffs brought both the foreign action and this action and originally chose Senegal as the forum.”
The final factor—the connection between the litigation and the foreign jurisdiction—also cut in favor of abstention. “Air Senegal is the national air carrier of Senegal, and this action relates to Aircraft leased by Air Senegal. On the other hand, the only connection to New York is that the Agreements … state that they are governed by New York law, and provide for jurisdiction in New York courts.”
Finding that all the relevant factors weighed in favor of abstention, Judge Aaron granted a stay until the proceedings in Senegal have concluded.
Conclusion
Often parallel proceedings result when each side prefers a different forum and files suit in its preferred court seeking an advantage. Unusually, in this case, the two proceedings were filed by the same parties.
Clearly this hurt them with Judge Aaron. Indeed, four of the Royal & Sun Alliance factors turned on the plaintiffs having filed first in Senegal—the order in which the proceedings were filed, the adequacy of the foreign forum, prejudice to the non-moving party, and convenience.
This is not to say that plaintiffs could not have taken actions in Senegal to regain possession of their planes, as they did. Such actions were not parallel to the New York action for non-payment of rent and would not have justified abstention under this doctrine. But allowing parallel proceedings for the rent was too much for Judge Aaron, who clearly felt that plaintiffs should have to live with their initial choice about where to sue.