Assmann v. Treglia
Decision Date | 25 February 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 13346. |
Citation | 318 F. Supp. 1040 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | Heinz ASSMANN, Plaintiff, v. David TREGLIA, Defendant. |
Richard G. Bohner, of Bohner & Bohner, Rego Park, N. Y., for plaintiff.
Elaine S. Amendola, of Goldstein & Peck, Bridgeport, Conn., for defendant.
Defendant moves to stay this personal injury action pending determination of an identical action in the Superior Court for Fairfield County, Connecticut. Defendant asks the Court to exercise its discretion by granting his requested stay in order to avoid duplicity of effort and in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency.
Plaintiff has chosen to institute parallel actions in the state and federal courts. Defendant need not have permitted this to occur: unnecessary duplication and expense could have been obviated if defendant, within 20 days of receipt of the state pleading, had removed that action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, and then moved to consolidate that action with the instant action pursuant to Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The leading case in this Circuit with respect to the discretionary stay of proceedings, such as that requested by defendant, is Mottolese v. Kaufman, 176 F.2d 301 (2 Cir. 1949), in which Judge Learned Hand recognized that the right of access to a federal forum is not absolute and affirmed the granting of a discretionary stay where an identical action previously had been commenced in the state courts. Although Mottolese has been criticized,1 it remains the law of this Circuit. For the reasons stated below, however, the Court is of the opinion that a stay of proceedings would not be appropriate in the instant action.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Universal Gypsum of Ga., Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 74 Civ. 425 (JMC).
...Beiersdorf & Co. v. McGohey, 187 F.2d 14 (2 Cir. 1951); Loeb v. Whittaker Corp., 333 F.Supp. 484, 489 (S.D.N.Y.1971); Assmann v. Treglia, 318 F.Supp. 1040 (D.Conn.1970); Witmar Salvage Corp. v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc., 308 F.Supp. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1969); Rosenfeld v. Schwitzer Corp., 251 ......
-
Abdin v. Goodbody & Co.
...one is another circumstance which I have considered in resolving a request for a stay. Mahkimetas v. Dascola, supra; Assmann v. Treglia, 318 F.Supp. 1040, 1041 (Conn.1970). However, when all the relevant factors are weighed and balanced, I conclude that the defendants' request for a stay mu......
-
Mahkimetas v. Dascola, 71-C-47.
...whether a stay should be granted. See Commerce Oil Refining Corp. v. Miner, 303 F.2d 125, 128 (1st Cir. 1962); Assmann v. Treglia, 318 F. Supp. 1040, 1041 (Conn.1970). However, since the filing of the defendants' motion, the plaintiff has applied to the state court for a change of venue of ......
- Investment Syndicates, Inc. v. Richmond, Civ. No. 70-564