Sherry v. Sherry ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              On appeal, appellant contends that the Illinois injunction is
    not enforceable in Nevada and that the district court abused its discretion
    when it dismissed his action on its own motion. Having reviewed the
    record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
    when it declined to exercise jurisdiction over appellant's action for
    annulment. The doctrine of comity "is a principle of courtesy by which the
    courts of one jurisdiction may give effect to the laws and judicial decisions
    of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect."     Gonzales-Alpizar v.
    Griffith, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, 
    317 P.3d 820
    , 826 (2014) (internal quotation
    omitted). Comity is appropriately invoked according to the sound
    discretion of the trial court, Mianecki v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 
    99 Nev. 93
    , 97-98, 
    658 P.2d 422
    , 424-25 (1983), and may be raised sua sponte,
    see Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 
    968 F.2d 850
    , 855 (9th Cir.
    1992). The first-to-file rule is a doctrine of comity providing that "where
    substantially identical actions are proceeding in different courts, the court
    of the later-filed action should defer to the jurisdiction of the court of the
    first-filed action by either dismissing, staying, or transferring the later-
    filed suit." SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc.,     
    219 F. Supp. 2d 1081
    ,
    1089 (S.D. Cal. 2002). The two actions need not be identical, only
    substantially similar. Inherent.com v. Martindale—Hubbell, 
    420 F. Supp. 2d 1093
    , 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
    Here, the district court applied the first-to-file rule finding
    that the first-filed Illinois action and the later-filed Nevada action
    involved the same parties and sought to resolve the shared issue of the
    termination of the parties' marriage. The district court further found that
    considerations of wise judicial administration and comprehensive
    disposition of litigation counseled in favor of applying the first-to-file rule
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) [947A
    and extending comity to its Illinois sister-court.              Under these
    circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
    invoked the first-to-file rule and determined that the Illinois court was the
    appropriate forum to determine the legal status of the parties' marriage.
    This determination also supported the district court's decision to dismiss
    the complaint, and because the first-to-file rule supports dismissal in this
    circumstance,' the district court's additional reliance on forum non
    conveniens is unnecessary to address.      SAES Getters S.p.A. 
    219 F. Supp. 2d at 1089
    ; see also Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 
    126 Nev. 592
    , 599, 
    245 P.3d 1198
    , 1202 (2010) (providing that this court will affirm
    a district court order if it reached the correct result). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    J.
    Saitta
    , J.
    ibbons                                    Pickering
    cc:   Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge
    David Kalo Neidert
    Wendy Sherry
    Churchill County Clerk
    'We conclude that there was no due process violation as appellant
    addressed the district court's invocation of the first-to-file rule before the
    dismissal in his motion to reconsider the stay order.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A allgtio