Coakley & Booth, Inc. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | Docket 30403.,No. 15,15 |
| Citation | 367 F.2d 151 |
| Parties | COAKLEY & BOOTH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BALTIMORE CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William D. Powers, Leslie A. Hynes, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.
Herbert Rubin, New York City, Robert D. Wallick, Washington, D. C., Walter Herzfeld, David M. Madway, Herzfeld & Rubin, New York City, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
Before WATERMAN, MOORE an ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant contracted with the Government to construct certain underground garages in Washington, D. C. and on the same day subcontracted certain of the excavation, bracing and shoring work, required to perform its government contract, to respondent. Some seven months later appellant terminated its subcontracting contract with respondent. Respondent then commenced an action in the State of New York Supreme Court alleging that appellant had breached the subcontracting contract and respondent had suffered damages thereby. Appellant removed this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and answered respondent's complaint denying the material allegations therein and also setting forth three affirmative defenses, set-offs and counter-claim in which it was alleged that respondent failed to perform its subcontract, failed to employ qualified personnel, and failed to pay its subcontractors, laborers, suppliers and materialmen. Respondent in turn filed its pleading denying the material allegations contained in appellant's three affirmative defense pleadings.
Pleadings being closed appellant then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This motion was denied in a well considered opinion by Judge Tenney, as was also a petition to reargue.
Thereupon appellant commenced its own action against respondent in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint contained three separate counts, the first sought to recover the identical damages contained in the counterclaims filed in defense to respondent's prior suit pending in New York, the second sought to recover $10,363.31 for an alleged unrelated breach of contract in connection with a certain construction job in Boston, Mass., and the third sought damages for respondent's alleged tortious interference with appellant's "contractual and business relations with its employees and with other individuals, firms and corporations with whom a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US Telecom, Inc. v. Hubert
...824, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964), and the pendency of another action between the parties in another court. See Coakley & Booth v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc., 367 F.2d 151 (2d Cir.1966). Hubert has failed to meet his burden of proving that the convenience of the parties and witnesses will be furt......
-
City of New York v. Exxon Corp.
...court, the first court has jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecution of the second action.") (citing Coakley & Booth, Inc. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc., 367 F.2d 151 (2d Cir.1966); National Equipment v. Fowler, 287 F.2d 43 (2d Cir.1961)). The "first-filed" rule applies, "`absent the showing ......
-
Hypro, Inc. v. SEEGER-WANNER CORPORATION
...which detracts from the fair, efficient, and final settlement of a substantive dispute is not favored. Coakley & Booth, Inc. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc., 367 F.2d 151 (2d Cir. 1966); 6A Moore's ¶ 57.085. Thus while the fact that the other case was filed first is not conclusive, Chicago F......
-
Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcide Corp.
...Federal Court, the first action has jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecution of the second action. See, Coakley & Booth, Inc. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc., 367 F.2d 151 (2d Cir.1966); National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler, 287 F.2d 43 (2d Meeropol v. Nizer, 505 F.2d 232, 235 (2d Cir.197......