Parallel Proceedings

A proceeding is parallel if it involves similar parties and similar issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed how federal courts should assess parallel proceedings in foreign courts (sometimes referred to as lis alibi pendens). The default approach has been to allow both cases to proceed until a judgment has been rendered in one case that may be given preclusive effect in the other. Most federal courts treat this question as one of abstention, though occasionally courts address it through forum non conveniens.

Alternatively, a U.S. court may issue an antisuit injunction ordering the parties to discontinue the suit in the other jurisdiction. There is a split among the circuits on the standard for issuing antisuit injunctions, with some courts adopting a conservative approach of granting such an injunction only if the foreign proceeding threatens the jurisdiction of the U.S. court or an important U.S. public policy and other courts adopting a liberal approach of granting such an injunction if the foreign proceeding is duplicative and vexatious.

Recent Posts

Cert Petition Defends Partial Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals

A pending cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court asks whether a district court may dismiss part of an action pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens (“FNC”) while allowing the rest of the case to proceed. The Tenth Circuit held that it could not in DIRTT Environmental Solutions Inc. v. Falkbuilt Ltd. because…

Continue Reading

Divided Fifth Circuit Panel Affirms Antisuit Injunction in Tragic Case

Normally, the fact that the Fifth Circuit affirmed an antisuit injunction would not be noteworthy. The Fifth Circuit is among the circuits that has adopted a liberal approach to antisuit injunctions, and all circuits review a district court’s decision to grant or deny such an injunction for abuse of discretion. But the decision in Ganpat…

Continue Reading

The Use and Abuse of Section 1782 Litigation in England

This post considers the use and misuse in England of the U.S. district court’s power under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to order a person to give evidence or produce documents for use in a proceeding in a foreign tribunal. It is based upon a paper written for a conference honouring Professor Linda Silberman, a close…

Continue Reading

Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law § 425 (antisuit injunctions)

Report of the Working Group on Jurisdiction on Matters Related to Jurisdiction in Transnational Civil or Commercial Litigation, Including Rules for Concurrent Proceedings (Hague)

Quaak v. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, 361 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2004) (antisuit injunctions)

Paul Herrup and Ronald A. Brand, A Hague Parallel Proceedings Convention: Architecture and Features, Chicago Journal of International Law Online (forthcoming 2022) (Pitt)

Paul Herrup and Ronald A. Brand, A Hague Convention on Parallel Proceedings, 63
Harvard International Law Journal Online 1 (2022) (HJIL)

Maggie Gardner, Deferring to Foreign Courts, 169 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2291 (2021) (SSRN)

I. Strong, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States, 66 Am. J. Comp. L. 153 (2018) (Missouri)

Campbell McLachlan, Lis Pendens in International Litigation (2009)

Jansen Calamita, Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International Parallel Proceedings, 27 U. Pa. J. Int’tl L. 601 (2006) (Penn)

Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdictional Equilibration, the Proposed Hague Convention and Progress in National Law, 49 Am. J. Comp. L. 203 (2001)

George A. Bermann, The Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Litigation, 28 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 589 (1990) (Columbia)