Hypro, Inc. v. SEEGER-WANNER CORPORATION
Decision Date | 19 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 3-68-Civ-270.,3-68-Civ-270. |
Parties | HYPRO, INC., Plaintiff, v. SEEGER-WANNER CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Orrin M. Haugen, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Cecil C. Schmidt, Merchant & Gould, St. Paul, Minn., for defendant.
In this action, begun October 16, 1968, plaintiff seeks a declaration that defendant's patent* is invalid, and that plaintiff's activities do not constitute an infringement of that patent.
On July 12, 1968, Seeger-Wanner Corporation, defendant here, brought suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio against the plaintiff in this action, Hypro, Inc. and its customer, Allen Pump Company, for infringement of the same patent here involved. Seeger-Wanner moves this court to dismiss the present suit, or in the alternative, to stay all proceedings herein, until after the final disposition of the pending Ohio district court action.
The points at issue in the Ohio suit encompass the same matters raised in the present complaint. If there is any difference, the Ohio action, containing an additional party defendant, appears to be more comprehensive. Plaintiff hardly disputes this, but opposes defendant's motion on the grounds that both parties, and the majority of vital witnesses, can be found within fifteen miles of this courthouse. It is significant that this same argument from convenience is presently before the district court in Ohio on Hypro, Inc.'s motion under 28 U.S. C.A. § 1404(a), to have the infringement case, absent defendant Allen Pump Company, transferred to this court.
Essentially, then, the question we must answer is whether to dismiss, or at least stay, an action for declaratory judgment concerning the same issues presently pending between the same parties in a suit previously commenced in another federal district court.
Of course, the granting of declaratory relief is, within certain bounds, discretionary with the trial court. See, e. g., Shell Oil Co. v. Frusetta, 290 F.2d 689 (9th Cir. 1961); Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. v. Central R. of N. J., 33 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.Pa.1940); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1265 (1958). This discretion provides a flexibility which is particularly potent where, as here, similar matters are simultaneously pending in two or more courts. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 155, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Boswell, 248 F.2d 862 (8th Cir. 1957); Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Artists Corp., 113 F.2d 703, 710 (3d Cir. 1940); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Consumer Finance Service Inc., 101 F.2d 514, 515 (3d Cir. 1938); 6A Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 57.086.
Regarding the exercise of that discretion in cases involving similar matters which are pending in another federal district court, it has been said that:
In deciding whether to dismiss or stay a declaratory judgment action which is potentially only cumulative litigation, a court should, in order to avoid stiff and mechanical solution, consider the variety of relevant factors. "Procedural fencing" 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 Furniture Forwarding Co. v. Bowles, 161 F.2d 411, 413 (7th Cir. 1947); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, supra, § 1266, barring compelling reasons favoring the completion of the later cause, the second court will, at least temporarily, stand aside. National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler, 287 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1961); Columbia Boiler Co. of Pottstown, Inc. v. Manville Boiler Co., 188 F.Supp. 520, 521 (S.D N.Y. 1960); Martin v. Graybar Electric Co., 266 F.2d 202 (7th Cir. 1959); Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 157 F.2d 653, 656 (10th Cir. 1946). And the Supreme Court has warned that:
Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., supra, 342 U.S. at 185, 72 S.Ct. at 222.
As well, a court should seek to determine which of the two actions will serve best the needs of the parties by providing a comprehensive solution of the general conflict. McGraw Edison Co. v. Preformed Line Products Co., 362 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1966); Chicago Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Katzinger, 123 F.2d 518 (7th Cir. 1941); Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Brannen, 31 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.Iowa 1940); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, supra, § 1266.
Among these are factors of judicial economy, informal comity between courts, cost and convenience to the litigants, and the possibility of vexatious conflict and overlap of multiple determinations of the same dispute. Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., supra, 342 U.S. at 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200; Foster Wheeler Corp. v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., 157 U.S.P.Q. 146 (E.D. Pa.1967); Martin v. Graybar Electric Co., Inc., supra; Pierce v. Allen B. Du Mont Laboratories, Inc., 138 F.Supp. 959 (D.Del.1956); National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler, sup...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Karsjens v. Jesson
...with respect to Terhaar, the Court would not be providing “a comprehensive solution of the general conflict.” Hypro, Inc. v. Seeger–Wanner Corp., 292 F.Supp. 342, 344 (D.Minn.1968) (stating that when determining whether to dismiss or stay a declaratory judgment action which is potentially c......
-
Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. v. Anderson, C0-87-233
...will serve best the needs of the parties by providing a comprehensive solution of the general conflict. Hypro, Inc. v. Seeger-Wanner Corp., 292 F.Supp. 342, 344 (D.Minn.1968) (citations omitted). In addition to avoiding piecemeal litigation by providing a comprehensive solution, the court s......
-
Novo Nordisk Inc v. Paddock Laboratories Inc
...the present action provides a "comprehensive solution of the general conflict" between the parties. See Hyrpo, Inc. v. Seeger-Wanner Corp., 292 F. Supp. 342, 344 (D. Minn. 1968). The present case includes both patent and antitrust disputes between the parties, while the Michigan Action invo......
-
Koch Engineering Co., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 85-1578C(1).
...to the entire controversy. Ven-Fuel, Inc. v. Dept. of the Treasury, 673 F.2d 1194, 1195 (11th Cir.1982); Hypro, Inc. v. Seeger-Wanner Corp., 292 F.Supp. 342, 344 (D.Minn.1968). Koch contends that Monsanto will be required to raise all its claims against Koch as compulsory counterclaims purs......