Sherry v. Sherry

 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