Continental Time Corp. v. Swiss Credit Bank
543 F. Supp. 408, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13629 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court has the inherent, discretionary power to dismiss or stay a domestic action in favor of a previously filed, pending foreign litigation that presents the same fundamental claims and issues.
Facts:
- On January 10, 1980, Credit Suisse (“Swiss Credit”) issued an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of Continental Time Corp. (“Continental”).
- On January 21, 1980, Continental assigned its entire interest in the letter of credit to S. Frederick & Company (“Frederick”) and Arlington Distributing Co., Inc. (“Arlington”).
- On January 29, 1980, Swiss Credit refused to honor the letter of credit, advising that the provided air waybill did not conform to the letter's requirements.
- The letter of credit expired with no payment made by Swiss Credit.
- On March 18, 1982, as part of a settlement in a separate dispute, Frederick reassigned 75% of its interest in the letter of credit back to Continental.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 28, 1980, Frederick and Arlington instituted a suit against Swiss Credit in a court of first instance in Switzerland.
- The Swiss court consolidated the actions.
- In 1981, Continental instituted the present suit against Swiss Credit in U.S. District Court.
- Swiss Credit (defendant) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or stay the action in the U.S. District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court have the discretion to dismiss a lawsuit when a substantially similar action involving the same core issues was previously filed and is pending in a foreign court?
Opinions:
Majority - Lasker, District Judge
Yes. A court has the inherent power to dismiss an action in favor of a foreign litigation presenting the same claims and issues. The court's decision is based on a balancing of several factors, including judicial efficiency, the adequacy of the foreign forum, the identity of parties and issues, convenience, potential prejudice, and the temporal sequence of the filings. Here, the Swiss action was filed six months earlier and has the potential to include all necessary parties, as Arlington is a party there but not in the U.S. action. Allowing both suits to proceed would force Swiss Credit to defend the same issue in two fora, creating a risk of inconsistent decisions. The court also found that the reassignment of the claim from Frederick back to Continental after litigation had commenced in Switzerland constituted a form of forum shopping, which militated in favor of dismissal.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the doctrine of international comity and a court's authority to manage its docket to prevent duplicative litigation. It establishes that when a parallel lawsuit is pending in a competent foreign court, a U.S. court will apply a multi-factor balancing test to determine whether to cede jurisdiction. The decision prioritizes judicial efficiency, the avoidance of inconsistent judgments, and deference to the first-filed action, particularly when the foreign forum can provide a comprehensive resolution for all involved parties and there is evidence of forum shopping by one of the litigants.
