Evans Transp. Co. v. Scullin Steel Co., 81 C 5735.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81 C 5735.,81 C 5735. |
| Citation | 530 F. Supp. 787 |
| Parties | EVANS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SCULLIN STEEL COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Leonard Schanfield, Robert R. Tepper and Erica Tina Helfer, Rosenthal & Schanfield, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Richard K. Wray and Andrew L. Spivack, Arnstein, Gluck & Lehr, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Evans Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as Transportation) brings this claim for an alleged breach of contract against defendant, Scullin Steel Company, (hereinafter referred to as Scullin). The jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Before the court is defendant Scullin's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay this proceeding pending the resolution of a prior action filed in the Missouri State Court by Scullin for damages arising out of the same contract naming as a defendant Evans Product Company (hereinafter referred to as Products), Transportation's parent company. For the reasons which follow, plaintiff's claim will be dismissed without prejudice.
Those facts relevant to the resolution of this motion are not in dispute and are substantially as follows. On September 11, 1981, Scullin filed an action which is presently pending in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri (hereinafter referred to as "the Missouri action"). In the Missouri action, Scullin seeks damages for an alleged breach of a contract entered into on June 19, 1978 between Scullin and Southern Iron and Equipment Company (hereinafter Southern), a division of Transportation. An answer has been filed by defendant Products in the Missouri action, denying that it entered into the aforementioned contract, and plaintiff has propounded its first set of interrogatories.
On October 13, 1981 Transportation instituted the present action alleging that Scullin had breached the contract between Scullin and Southern. Scullin immediately filed the present motion. The fate of Southern is not disclosed by the record, however, it is clear that Southern is no longer available as an entity for suit. The same contract, however, is the subject matter of both lawsuits.
Scullin argues that the present lawsuit, which arises out of the same transactions, is duplicative of the parallel state action and an attempt by Transportation to deprive it of a more convenient forum. Transportation argues that judicial economy and convenience are insufficient reasons to stay or dismiss the present action, contending that the court's discretion is limited to those situations which present exceptional circumstances.
It is well established that the pendency of an action in a state court is not a bar to proceedings concerning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Microsoftware Computer Systems, Inc. v. Ontel Corp.
...211 (E.D.Wis.1979), and Gentron Corp. v. H. C. Johnson Agencies, Inc., 79 F.R.D. 415 (E.D.Wis.1978) with Evans Transportation Co. v. Scullin Steel Co., 530 F.Supp. 787 (N.D.Ill.1982) and Burrows v. Sebastian, 448 F.Supp. 51 (N.D.Ill.1978). Presumably the confusion stems from this Court's fa......
-
Evans Transp. Co. v. Scullin Steel Co.
...leave to reinstate should it become apparent that the Missouri action cannot resolve the controversy between the parties." 530 F.Supp. 787, 789 (N.D.Ill.1982). Evans Transportation appealed to this Shortly before oral argument, Evans Transportation filed with us copies of pleadings that had......
-
ACandS, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
...the state and federal action, the court may freely exercise its discretion and dismiss the complaint. Evans Transportation Co. v. Scullin Steel Co., 530 F.Supp. 787, 788 (N.D.Ill.1982). The parallel state court action represents an attempt by Armstrong, the third-party defendant herein, to ......
-
CBI Industries, Inc. v. Horton
... ... of a trust of which the director is a co-trustee ... Horton, the ... ...