Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis v. Summers

Alexandria County Circuit Court

Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis v. Summers

28 Va. Cir. 108, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 255

CourtAlexandria County Circuit Court

DecidedApril 13, 1992

DocketCase No. (Chancery) CH910830

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Va. Cir. 108 (Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis v. Summers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alexandria County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis v. Summers, 28 Va. Cir. 108, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 255 (Va. Super. Ct. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Donald H. Kent

This matter came before the Court on the defendant’s motion for dismissal or stay. The plaintiff filed this action for declaratory judgment on November 6, 1991, and requested that the clerk not issue service of process. Subsequently, the defendant filed suit in California alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the California Business and Professions Code, rescission based on unethical conduct, misrepresentation, undue influence, duress and an accounting.

The Court, having considered the pleadings and argument of counsel, finds that the California Court should be given the opportunity to resolve this matter since the parties were first at issue in California, and all possible issues have ben raised in the California Court. This matter will be stayed until November 1, 1992, at which time the plaintiff may request that this Court proceed if substantial progress has not been made in the California Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Donald H. Kent

This matter came before the Court on the defendant’s motion for dismissal or stay. The plaintiff filed this action for declaratory judgment on November 6, 1991, and requested that the clerk not issue service of process. Subsequently, the defendant filed suit in California alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the California Business and Professions Code, rescission based on unethical conduct, misrepresentation, undue influence, duress and an accounting.

The Court, having considered the pleadings and argument of counsel, finds that the California Court should be given the opportunity to resolve this matter since the parties were first at issue in California, and all possible issues have ben raised in the California Court. This matter will be stayed until November 1, 1992, at which time the plaintiff may request that this Court proceed if substantial progress has not been made in the California Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Va. Cir. 108, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-doane-swecker-mathis-v-summers-vaccalexandria-1992.