LESLIE FAY RETAIL OUTLETS, INC., AND THE LESLIE FAY COMPANIES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
GALLERY MANUFACTURING, CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, D/B/A GALLERY INDUSTRIES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a trial court should grant a stay of proceedings when a prior filed action involving substantially the same parties and issues is pending in another state's courts.
Petitioners sought to dismiss or stay a Florida action in favor of a prior New York action involving identical parties and issues. The trial court den…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duplicative Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, Leslie Fay Retail Outlets, Inc. and The Leslie Fay Companies, Inc. ask this Court to grant their petition for common law certiorari and quash a non-final order of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss or stay the action filed in Dade County in favor of a prior action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. We grant the petition for certiorari and quash the non-final order. We find this case is determined by our opinion in Polaris Public Income Funds v. Einhorn, 625 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). As in Polaris, this case involves actions identical in parties and issues so as to be unnecessarily duplicative of the first-filed New York suit. The Dade County suit is subsumed within the New York proceedings. Respondent, a California corporation, will not be prejudiced by proceeding in the New York action.
Principles of comity are different from those of jurisdiction and choice of law, and as such, .they are also analyzed differently. “Principles of comity between sovereigns suggest that a court of one state should stay a proceeding pending before it on grounds that a prior filed case involving substantially the same subject matter and parties is pending in another state’s courts.” Polaris, 625 So. 2d at 129 (quoting Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), review dismissed, 427 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1983)).
We grant the writ-of certiorari, quash the order under review and remand with instructions to grant the stay.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pilevsky v. Morgans Hotel Grp. Mgmt., LLC, 961 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…d 1139, 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). III. ANALYSIS We find that the disposition of this appeal is governed by Polaris Public Income Funds v. Einhorn, 625 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) and Leslie Fay Retail Outlets, Inc. v. Gallery Manufacturing Corp., 653 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In Polaris, this Court stated: Principles of comity between sovereigns suggest that a court of one state should stay a proceeding pending before it on grounds that a prior-filed case involving substantially the same subject mat…
-
Fresh del Monte Produce, N.V. v. Chiquita Int'l Ltd., 664 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Polaris Public Income Funds v. Einhorn, 625 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Ricigliano v. Peat, Marwick, Main & Co., 585 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Leslie Fay Retail Outlets, Inc. v. Gallery Manufacturing Corp., 653 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Reuther v. Reuther, 524 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1988); Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada, 462 So. 2d 101, 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Chiquita’s assertion of injunction claims in Florida clearly v…
-
Fried v. Bergman, 736 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) and cases cited. Under comity, the trial court should have stayed this proceeding while the prior case involving the same subject matter and parties was pending in Georgia. Leslie Fay Retail Outlets, Inc. v. Gallery Mfg. Corp., 653 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) and cases cited. As to the question of whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants, the facts are undisputed that the individual defendants, who are Georgia residents, met with the appellant in Pal…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- State v. Thompson, 625 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)