WITMAR SALVAGE CORPORATION v. CW Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1969
• Docket Number: No. 69 Civ. 1562.,69 Civ. 1562.
• Citation: 308 F. Supp. 395
• Parties: WITMAR SALVAGE CORPORATION and Witte Marine Equipment Co., Inc., Plaintiff, v. C. W. BLAKESLEE & SONS, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

308 F. Supp. 395

WITMAR SALVAGE CORPORATION

and

Witte Marine Equipment Co., Inc., Plaintiff, v. C. W. BLAKESLEE & SONS, INC., Defendant.

No. 69 Civ. 1562.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

November 20, 1969.

Troy & Wallace, New York City, for plaintiff.

Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

TENNEY, District Judge.

On or about October 17, 1967, plaintiff Witmar Salvage Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Witmar") and C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Blakeslee") entered into a written charter party for the hire of the barge "WITTE 163". By complaint dated April 8, 1969, Witmar commenced an action in this court against Blakeslee seeking $50,800.00 allegedly owed it pursuant to the terms of the charter party. Co-plaintiff Witte Marine Equipment Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Witte") seeks $1,907.20 for salvage operation services rendered to Blakeslee.

It is undisputed that the charter party was entered into between Blakeslee and Witmar, that salvaging services were performed by Witte, that the barge was insured by the Washington General Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Washington General"), and that the factual circumstance occasioning the dispute herein was the holing of the barge WITTE 163 on January 6, 1968, while under tow by the Red Star Towing Company (hereinafter referred to as "Red Star"). There is also no dispute that in July of 1968 Blakeslee, the defendant herein, commenced suit against Witmar, Washington General and one of its agents, and Red Star in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, County of New Haven.

Defendant now moves this Court to stay the federal action pending the outcome of the Connecticut suit. In support of its motion, defendant contends that both actions involve identical issues and that more complete relief may be given in the Connecticut action as all of the parties are present therein. Further, it is urged that the federal action should be stayed in order to prevent multiplicity of suits and to relieve Blakeslee from the burden of having to prosecute one action in Connecticut and defend another in this forum.

Relevant authority dispels any doubt that while an in personam action is pending in a state court, an action for the same cause may subsequently be brought in a federal forum. Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 230, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922). Each court is free to proceed independently of the other's actions. Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., supra at 230, 43 S.Ct. 79. It is also well established, however, that the district court has inherent power to stay proceedings commenced therein, Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936), and that a stay should be granted when in its absence grave hardship or inequity will result to the suppliant therefor. Landis v. North American Co., supra at 255, 57 S.Ct. 163.

Application of these sound principles by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reveals that, although the district court is not obligated to abate an in personam action on a plea of a pending state court action, it remains within its sound discretion to do so. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Union Local No. 338 v. Dairymen's League Co-Operative Ass'n, 304 F.2d 913, 915 (2d Cir. 1962); Ballantine Books, Inc. v. Capital Distrib. Co., 302 F.2d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1962); Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 672 (2d Cir. 1961).

The facts presented in the instant suit amply justify the issuance of an order staying the proceedings in this forum until the termination of the suit pending in Connecticut. The issues...