From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lyons v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 12, 1952
109 F. Supp. 925 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)

Opinion

November 12, 1952.

Copal Mintz, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, for Westinghouse.

Simpson, Thacher Bartlett, New York City, for General Electric Co.


This is a motion by the plaintiffs to stay defendant, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, from taking any further proceedings in an action brought in the New York State Supreme Court by the defendant corporation against the plaintiffs, for breach of a contract and for an accounting.

In the State court action, the defendants interposed as a defense that the contract was illegal because it was made in violation of the Anti-Trust Laws. Thereafter, the defendants in the State court action brought this action for treble damages in this court against the Westinghouse Corporation, alleging violation of the same laws that they themselves set up as a defense in the State court.

Even though this might in many instances lead to duplication of litigation of the same issues in both courts, the Federal courts have always been unwilling to interfere with any proceeding pending in a State court in any manner in any case in which both courts have concurrent jurisdiction in personam, unless it is deemed that such restraint is absolutely necessary to preserve the integrity of the Federal court's jurisdiction. Accordingly it has been held that this court will not do so even though the Anti-Trust Laws are involved in both actions, as in this case. Red Rock Cola Co. v. Red Rock Bottlers, Inc., 5 Cir., 195 F.2d 406; Bascom Launder Corp. v. Telecoin Corp., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 677, 678; see Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 U.S. 118, 62 S.Ct. 139, 86 L.Ed. 100; Moore's Commentary on the United States Judicial Code, pp. 395-415.

Since a stay of these State court proceedings is not expressly authorized by any act of Congress, and it is not required in aid of this court's jurisdiction or to effectuate its judgments, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283 is not applicable.

In Ring v. Spina, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 647, 160 A.L.R. 371, relied on by the plaintiffs, arbitration, not court proceedings were stayed.

The motion to stay the proceedings accordingly is denied.


Summaries of

Lyons v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 12, 1952
109 F. Supp. 925 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)
Case details for

Lyons v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LYONS et al. v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. et al

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Nov 12, 1952

Citations

109 F. Supp. 925 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)

Citing Cases

Avon Publishing Co. v. American News Co.

In the case at bar the contract, which is the subject of the action in the New York Supreme Court, has not…

Reines Distributors, Inc. v. Admiral Corporation

In the antitrust field where the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction (General Investment Co. v. Lake…