Law Debenture Trust Company of New York v. Parker International
Filing
170
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER LIFTING STAY granting 160 Request to Lift Stay and Schedule Trial ; The hearing currently scheduled in this matter for November 15, 2012, is hereby Stricken ; The parties are instructed to meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling order within fourteen (14) days for the Courts approval. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/13/2012. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
LAW DEBENTURE TRUST COMPANY
OF NEW YORK,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER LIFTING STAY
vs.
PARKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 2:10-CV-956 TS
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Law Debenture Trust Company of New
York’s Six-Month Status Report and Request to Lift Stay and Schedule Trial.1 For the reasons
discussed more fully below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and lift the stay.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are more fully set out in this Court’s Sealed Memorandum Decision
and Order entered February 8, 2012 (the “Memorandum Decision”),2 and will not be repeated
here.
1
Docket No. 160.
2
Docket No. 156.
1
In its Memorandum Decision the Court granted Defendant’s motion to stay this action
pending the resolution of related proceedings in Brazil. The Court agreed to stay this action for
one year, and instructed Plaintiff to provide a status report on the progress of the Brazilian
proceedings in six months’ time. The Court specifically instructed that in one year, or before in
the event of a material change in circumstances, either party could file a motion to dissolve the
stay.
Plaintiff has submitted its six-month status report. In its report, Plaintiff alleges that a
material change in circumstances has occurred because Diplomata, the entity from which it was
seeking recovery in Brazil, has filed for bankruptcy. On August 3, 2012, Diplomata sought
“judicial recovery” under Brazil’s insolvency law, which is the equivalent to a Chapter 11
reorganization under United States bankruptcy laws. Diplomata’s bankruptcy filing caused an
automatic and mandatory 180-day stay of the proceedings in the Brazilian suit.
In its status report, Plaintiff notes the deep financial straits in which Diplomata is
operating and provides evidence that Diplomata has ceased to make the interim payments that
were a condition of settlement negotiations. Plaintiff provides evidence that Diplomata has
failed to abide by the terms of the negotiations and provide Plaintiff its financial data. Plaintiff
also cites a number of Brazilian news articles evidencing the financial hardships confronting the
meat processing industry generally.
Based on these recent events and other evidence, Plaintiff requests that the stay be lifted
and this matter be scheduled for trial at the earliest convenience of the Court and the parties. In
2
the event the stay is not lifted, Plaintiff requests that the Court schedule a trial for as soon after
the termination of the one-year stay as practicable.
II. DISCUSSION
“Federal courts have the inherent power to stay an action based on the pendency of a
related proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction.”3 “However, this inherent power to stay parallel
litigation must be balanced against the federal courts’ ‘strict duty to exercise the jurisdiction that
is conferred upon them by Congress.’”4 In determining whether a stay is warranted, the Court
considers the following factors drawn from the case of National Union Fire Insurance Company
v. Kozeny:
1) similarity of parties and issues involved in the foreign litigation; 2) the
promotion of judicial efficiency; 3) adequacy of relief available in the alternative
forum; 4) issues of fairness to and convenience of the parties, counsel, and
witnesses; 5) the possibility of prejudice to any of the parties; and 6) the temporal
sequence of the filing of the actions.5
On balance of these factors, this Court previously found a one-year stay warranted.
Plaintiff asserts that Diplomata’s filing for bankruptcy alters the analysis under the National
Union factors. The arguments and evidence presented by Plaintiff directly affect the Court’s
3
Cows, Inc. v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 2005 WL 3071772, at *2 (D. Utah Nov. 16, 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
4
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1246 (D. Colo. 2000)
(quoting Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716 (1996)).
5
Id. at 1247; see also Cows, 2005 WL 3071772, at *2 (citing National Union and
considering the same factors in granting a motion to stay pending the completion of related
litigation in Canada).
3
prior analysis as to at least one of the National Union factors, namely, the adequacy of relief
available in the alternative forum.
A one-year stay was granted in this case in large part to allow a staggered recovery and
ensure adequate relief while avoiding the threat of double recovery for the same debt. Such a
stay ameliorated Defendant’s concern that, by simultaneously seeking recovery in Brazil and this
forum, Plaintiff may obtain a double recovery on the same debt.
At this juncture, the threat of Plaintiff receiving a double recovery has greatly diminished.
Plaintiff has provided ample evidence of the financial difficulties Diplomata, and the meat
processing industry generally, are experiencing. As a practical matter, Diplomata’s entering into
bankruptcy demonstrates an inability to fully compensate Plaintiff—debtors typically enter
bankruptcy because they find themselves unable to fully re-pay debts. Plaintiff also correctly
notes that its action against Diplomata in Brazil is stayed and, therefore, it is currently unable to
pursue its remedies in that forum.
In sum, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unlikely to receive adequate relief in the
Brazilian forum. It follows that the likelihood of a double recovery is diminished. Therefore, the
Court finds that a stay is no longer warranted in this case.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and lift the stay in this
case. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request to Lift Stay and Schedule Trial (Docket No. 160) is
GRANTED. The hearing currently scheduled in this matter for November 15, 2012, is hereby
4
STRICKEN. The parties are instructed to meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling
order within fourteen (14) days for the Court’s approval.
DATED November 13, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?