Parallel litigation
Encyclopedia
Parallel litigation is a scenario in which different court
s are hearing the same claim(s). The general rule is that parallel litigation (and the "race to judgment" that results) is a necessary and acceptable consequence of our system of dual sovereignty, in which both state and federal courts have personal jurisdiction over the parties. A major exception to this rule is that a second parallel In rem
proceeding will be enjoined by the first court to obtain jurisdiction, as it has already been drawn into constructive possession of the object of the dispute.
In rare cases the federal courts have announced a policy of not hearing (abstaining
from) a case when there is parallel litigation going on in state courts, following the Colorado River abstention
doctrine. In that case, the federal government sued for adjudication of certain water rights in Colorado
; parties to a state court proceeding joined the U.S. as a defendant, and the Supreme Court said the federal courts should defer to that parallel litigation. This analysis can be conceptualized as a Forum non conveniens
analysis in which there is already an alternative forum in play.
The general rule is that "[a]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule." Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 14 (1983) (citing Colo. River Water Conserv. Distr. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976)).
Court
A court is a form of tribunal, often a governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law...
s are hearing the same claim(s). The general rule is that parallel litigation (and the "race to judgment" that results) is a necessary and acceptable consequence of our system of dual sovereignty, in which both state and federal courts have personal jurisdiction over the parties. A major exception to this rule is that a second parallel In rem
In rem
In rem is Latin for "against a thing." In a lawsuit, an action in rem is directed towards a piece of property rather than against a person . The action disputes or seeks to transfer title to property. When title to real estate In rem is Latin for "against a thing." In a lawsuit, an action in rem...
proceeding will be enjoined by the first court to obtain jurisdiction, as it has already been drawn into constructive possession of the object of the dispute.
In rare cases the federal courts have announced a policy of not hearing (abstaining
Abstention doctrine
An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a court of law in the United States of America might apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court...
from) a case when there is parallel litigation going on in state courts, following the Colorado River abstention
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States created a new doctrine of abstention, to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts....
doctrine. In that case, the federal government sued for adjudication of certain water rights in Colorado
Colorado
Colorado is a U.S. state that encompasses much of the Rocky Mountains as well as the northeastern portion of the Colorado Plateau and the western edge of the Great Plains...
; parties to a state court proceeding joined the U.S. as a defendant, and the Supreme Court said the federal courts should defer to that parallel litigation. This analysis can be conceptualized as a Forum non conveniens
Forum non conveniens
Forum non conveniens is a common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties...
analysis in which there is already an alternative forum in play.
The general rule is that "[a]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule." Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 14 (1983) (citing Colo. River Water Conserv. Distr. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976)).