Sherry v. Sherry

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: April 16, 2015
• Docket: 62895
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

On appeal, appellant contends that the Illinois injunction is not enforceable in Nevada and that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed his action on its own motion. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise jurisdiction over appellant's action for annulment. The doctrine of comity "is a principle of courtesy by which the courts of one jurisdiction may give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect." Gonzales-Alpizar v. Griffith, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, 317 P.3d 820, 826 (2014) (internal quotation omitted). Comity is appropriately invoked according to the sound discretion of the trial court, Mianecki v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 99 Nev. 93, 97-98, 658 P.2d 422, 424-25 (1983), and may be raised sua sponte, see Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 855 (9th Cir. 1992). The first-to-file rule is a doctrine of comity providing that "where substantially identical actions are proceeding in different courts, the court of the later-filed action should defer to the jurisdiction of the court of the first-filed action by either dismissing, staying, or transferring the later- filed suit." SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1089 (S.D. Cal. 2002). The two actions need not be identical, only substantially similar. Inherent.com v. Martindale—Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Here, the district court applied the first-to-file rule finding that the first-filed Illinois action and the later-filed Nevada action involved the same parties and sought to resolve the shared issue of the termination of the parties' marriage. The district court further found that considerations of wise judicial administration and comprehensive disposition of litigation counseled in favor of applying the first-to-file rule

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) [947A and extending comity to its Illinois sister-court. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it invoked the first-to-file rule and determined that the Illinois court was the appropriate forum to determine the legal status of the parties' marriage. This determination also supported the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint, and because the first-to-file rule supports dismissal in this circumstance,' the district court's additional reliance on forum non conveniens is unnecessary to address. SAES Getters S.p.A. 219 F. Supp. 2d at 1089; see also Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) (providing that this court will affirm a district court order if it reached the correct result). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Saitta

, J. ibbons Pickering

cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge David Kalo Neidert Wendy Sherry Churchill County Clerk

'We conclude that there was no due process violation as appellant addressed the district court's invocation of the first-to-file rule before the dismissal in his motion to reconsider the stay order.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A allgtio