International comity refers to deference to other countries that is not required by international law. The principle of international comity animates many different doctrines, which can be grouped into three categories: those that defer to foreign governments as litigants (“sovereign party comity”), those that defer to foreign lawmakers (“prescriptive comity”), and those that defer to foreign courts (“adjudicative comity”). Within each of these categories, “positive” comity doctrines use comity as a principle of recognition (such as the recognition of foreign judgments or the application of foreign law), while negative comity doctrines use comity as a principle of restraint (such as foreign sovereign immunity or the act of state doctrine).
When courts refer to the “doctrine of comity” or “comity abstention,” they often mean deference to parallel litigation in foreign courts or foreign bankruptcy proceedings. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, however, have invoked “international comity abstention” more broadly to dismiss cases based on foreign relations concerns.
A Primer on International Comity
The Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot (1895) famously defined international comity as “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation.” That definition is incomplete, however, as comity encompasses much more than the recognition of foreign acts. The Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law…
Continue ReadingCross-Border Discovery of Evidence From Non-Parties
It’s rare for me to read a decision on transnational litigation and conclude that the court paid too much attention to international comity. In a recent order resolving a discovery dispute, though, the Southern District of Florida engaged in what struck me as a completely unnecessary comity analysis. The order seemed to misread the Supreme…
Continue ReadingFinding the Right International Comity Doctrine
In Salisbury v. Costco Wholesale Corp., plaintiffs brought a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging that Costco sold, as “100% agave,” tequilas that contain cheaper, non-agave alcohol. Plaintiffs based their allegations on a testing methodology known as SNIF-NMR, which identifies the plant origin of ethanol by measuring…
Continue ReadingW.D. Texas Asserts the Exclusivity of U.S. Jurisdiction in Patent Cases
Patent disputes often create jurisdictional conflict. A lot of attention recently has been focused on complex and policy-laden litigation involving standard essential patents, but garden-variety infringement claims can lead to challenges too. A federal court in Texas recently issued an anti-suit injunction blocking parallel litigation in China in such a claim. Its order asserted that…
Continue Reading