This isn’t personal legal advice, but maybe a legal eagle can help me. I’m thinking of the WVU lawsuit v. the Big East. WVU filed a suit against the Big East in WV Circuit Court. Instead of responding in that court, the Big East filed another suit in a District Court in Rhode Island alleging their own damages. (This was not a removal motion)
I remember something in Civ Pro about judicial efficiency and not having separate proceedings on the same facts occurring in two different tribunals. Couldn’t one party or the other move to have the 2nd suit dismissed and consolidated with the other one? Could it do so as a matter of right? Who would win on that motion? (The first to file I would assume)
What happens with the choice of law issue? The WV suit will apply WV law. The Rhode Island suit will apply RI law. What if the choice of law made a difference? What if both courts ordered contradictory things?
Yes, it’s very likely that the two proceedings will not proceed in parallel. Exactly how that happens is heavily dependent upon the specific circumstances in the case. I believe the most common thing is for one of the proceedings to be suspended while the other is resolved.
I am neither familiar with West Virginia rules of civil procedure nor the fact and circumstances of either lawsuit. However, I believe WVU could move to dismiss the federal suit on the basis that the Big East’s complaint represents a compulsory counterclaim under F.R.C.P. 13. SeeAdam v. Jacobs, 950 F. 2d 89 (but note, this case involves two suits in different federal district courts, not a state-federal pair).
I didn’t catch the fact in the OP that both courts are federal. The case linked by Kimmy_Gibbler says dismissal of the second action may be proper if it is based upon compulsory counter claims. I just skimmed the opinion, so it appears the court has some discretion to give the second action priority over the first if there is some good showing that the forum of the second action is better than the forum of the first action.
No, you had it right the first time. In WVU v. Big East, WVU is suing in West Virginia state court and Big East is suing in the federal district court in Rhode Island.
In Adam v. Jacobs, the case I cited, it was two different federal districts. I added the parenthetical to point out that the opinion is not on all fours with our current case. Another unstated assumption is that WV civil procedure is broadly similar to federal civil procedure.
Actually, I think the Big East suit was filed in a Rhode Island state court. From a Washington Post article, “The conference said the lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island Superior Court seeking unspecified damages along with an order requiring West Virginia to stay put for 27 months in compliance with Big East bylaws.”
But given that the Big East is a multi-state organization, shouldn’t this be decided at the federal level?
I would assume that WVU would want it to stay in WV state court, and the Big East would want in to be in RI state court. Therefore, I’m sure both parties would file these motions to stay the proceedings in the other court.
Which one wins? The first one to file? AFAIK, neither side has responded to either complaint yet.
How about debating this proposition – a judge should have no source of household income other than his or her salary as a judge. What would be wrong with that?
I’m rusty on all this stuff. Can the defendant in the WV action remove the WV action to WV federal court and then apply the FRCP to try to persuade the federal court to pick RI as the forum?
Sure, they could. But I think the problem from the defendant’s perspective is that there’s a strong argument for the district court in West Virginia having personal jurisdiction over the Big East, and a weak argument for the federal court in Rhode Island having personal jurisdiction over WVU.
The fact that the Big East filed in Rhode Island as opposed to answering in WV (with what seems to be a compulsory counterclaim) points to how weak their claim probably is.
Although, it seems really surprising to me that the contracts between the Big East and these universities wouldn’t have had a choice of law or venue clause included (therefore avoiding this whole mess).
WVU is arguing that it is an arm of the state of West Virginia and is therefore not a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes. That argument worked before in the suit with former coach Rich Rodriguez.
I had assumed that the “District Court” mentioned in the OP meant federal district court. So, basically it doesn’t matter what FRCP says at all because we are talking about two separate state lawsuits. FRCP will only matter if one or more cases gets removed to federal court. If there is no compulsory counterclaim rule in West Virginia, then what would be the problem with the Rhode Island case proceeding? Are there any West Virginia Civ Pro experts who can explain the WV compulsory counterclaim rule and exceptions?
Sorry for the confusion. Both of these lawsuits were filed earlier this month, so the time for the answer hasn’t arrived yet.
My question was just a general one. You obviously can’t have a result where a WV state court enters a judgment saying: Yes, we give WVU everything and then a RI state court says “We give the Big East everything.”
It would also be absurd to have two separate trials in two different state courts. There must be some mechanism to have everything resolved in one tribunal…but which one?
My question was also more general. Let’s say that two ND residents were driving in SD and had an automobile accident. Let’s also assume that negligence was questionable and that SD courts had a procedural rule favorable to one party, but ND had a rule favorable to the other.
Party 1 files a lawsuit in ND over the accident (jurisdiction would apply since they are both ND residents).
Party 2 files a lawsuit in SD over the same accident three days later.
This is a classic law school exam question, except you haven’t given enough detail. In other words, these are the kinds of questions you actually ask a lawyer who is expert in the relevant law to figure out, after having provided all the facts. It’s not all that easy for us internet dilletantes to answer in such a generalized fashion.
My guess is each of the parties would rush to each courthouse to file motions to have the courts pick a forum. Whoever files their motion first would alert the other court and request that other court stay/continue its hearing on the motion pending the outcome of the hearing on the motion in the court where the motion was first filed. The court hearing the motion first would likely rule based upon variables such as first complaint filed, convenience of the parties, convenience of witnesses, judicial economy, etc. When the hearing on the motion comes up in the second court, that judge will enter an order in conformity with the order issued by the first judge ruling on the forum motion.
I don’t think state courts need to respect other state courts’ unless there is a decision on the merits. Just simply filing a case doesn’t mean much- what sort of motion would you file to stop the case from proceeding if you’re not planning to remove? However, as Acsenray mentioned, the answer is in the details. Specifically, what are the jurisdictional rules and what do the rules of civil procedure in each state say? If court#1 has a compulsory counterclaim rule, and the second case would count as a compulsory counterclaim under court #1, then the best thing would be for the Plaintiff in the first case file a 12(b) motion in the second for claim preclusion, arguing for dismissal based on the principle of res judicata. If the second case is not a compulsory counterclaim in the first court, then there’s nothing barring the litigation from being brought in a second court. However, the second court may look at a ruling from the first court and determine that res judicata applies under its own rules (again, depends on what claims are compulsory under second courts’ rules of civ pro).
