first-filed rule in Texas

2020We accordingly decline to undertake an analysis ranking mandatory venue as between the property code and the natural resources code. 10 Equinor responds to these arguments by complaining about Bank’s forum shopping. 18 The first-filed rule yields to other considerations in three instances: “(1) [c]onduct by a party that estops him from asserting prior active jurisdiction; (2) lack of persons to be joined if feasible, or the power to bring them before the court; and (3) lack of intent to prosecute the first lawsuit.” Wyatt, 760 S.W.2d at 248 ; Perry, 66 S.W.3d at 252 .

2020Indeed, the very next paragraph of Perry explains the exception to the first- filed rule dependent on delay arises when “joinder of parties is infeasible or impossible.” Id. (citing Wyatt, 760 S.W.2d at 246–47).

2020We accordingly decline to undertake an analysis ranking mandatory venue as between the property code and the natural resources code. 10 Equinor responds to these arguments by complaining about Bank’s forum shopping. 18 The first-filed rule yields to other considerations in three instances: “(1) [c]onduct by a party that estops him from asserting prior active jurisdiction; (2) lack of persons to be joined if feasible, or the power to bring them before the court; and (3) lack of intent to prosecute the first lawsuit.” Wyatt, 760 S.W.2d at 248 ; Perry, 66 S.W.3d at 252 .

2020Although Bank does not expressly rely on it, one phrase in Perry suggests potential discretion supporting the trial court’s denial of Equinor’s motion to abate: The first-filed rule admits of exceptions when its justifications fail, as when the first court does not have the full matter before it, or when conferring dominant jurisdiction on the first court will delay or even prevent a prompt and full adjudication, or when the race to the courthouse was unfairly run. 11 Based on the anticipated two-week period necessary to try the case, the LaSalle County court informed the parties they would ne

2015See Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 248 (Tex. 1988) ("It is well settled that when suit would be proper in more than one COUllty, the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts"); see also Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 252 (Tex. 2001) (orig. proceeding) (citing Wyatt for the first-filed rule in a case where there were four proceedings pending in different Texas counties); In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. App.?San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding) (liAs a general rule, when suit would be proper in more than one county, the

2015See Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 248 (Tex. 1988) ("It is well settled that when suit would be proper in more than one county, the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts"); see also PerlY v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 252 (Tex. 2001) (orig. proceeding) (citing Wyatt for the first- filed rule in a case where there were four proceedings pending in different Texas counties); In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. App.?San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding) (liAs a general rule, when suit would be proper in more than one county, the

2022Code Ann. art. 51.014(b). 20 Id. 15 rely on both involved ordinary appeals from judgments and were not original proceedings in which the party was challenging an ancillary ruling like the ruling that Relators have challenged here. 21 Generally, the first-filed rule “flows from principles of comity, convenience, and the necessity for an orderly procedure in the trial of contested issues.” 22 Yet here, principles of necessity and convenience must give way when an automatic legal stay prevented a party from filing its claim.

2016See id. (inequitable conduct alone is insufficient to defeat the first-filed rule).

2016In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (citing Johnson v. Avery, 414 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. 1966) and Russell v. Taylor, 121 Tex. 450 , 458–59, 49 S.W.2d 733, 736 (1932)).

2016In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d at 191 (citing Howell v. Mauzy, 899 S.W.2d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ denied) and Grimes v. Harris, 695 S.W.2d 648 , 651–52 (Tex. App.— Dallas 1985, orig. proceeding)).

2010See Space Master Int’l, Inc., 794 S.W.2d at 948 . 7 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by not extending comity to Delaware and staying the underlying action pending the resolution of the first-filed Delaware suit.

2010See Space Master Int’l, Inc., 794 S.W.2d at 948 . 7 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by not extending comity to Delaware and staying the underlying action pending the resolution of the first-filed Delaware suit.

2018DeGroot v. DeGroot, 260 S.W.3d 658, 663 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). 14 When no exception applies to the first-filed rule, a trial court in the second-filed case abuses its discretion by denying a motion to abate.

2016In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d at 191 (citing Howell v. Mauzy, 899 S.W.2d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ denied) and Grimes v. Harris, 695 S.W.2d 648 , 651–52 (Tex. App.— Dallas 1985, orig. proceeding)).

2016The appropriate authority is Tivoli Realty, Inc. v. Interstate Circuit, Inc., enforcing the first-filed rule by reversing an antisuit injunction from the second court.213 In Mann, the court split its remedy, staying the first-filed action in regard to claims related to the second action, and staying specific claims pending plaintiffs motion for leave to add those claims in the second action.114 Readers should not assume that legal tests and remedies 23 ° Id. (quoting Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 ). 2 "4See Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 2 5 " See supra note 105. 206751 F.2d 72

2016The appropriate authority is Tivoli Realty, Inc. v. Interstate Circuit, Inc., enforcing the first-filed rule by reversing an antisuit injunction from the second court.213 In Mann, the court split its remedy, staying the first-filed action in regard to claims related to the second action, and staying specific claims pending plaintiffs motion for leave to add those claims in the second action.114 Readers should not assume that legal tests and remedies 23 ° Id. (quoting Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223 ). 2 "4See Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 2 5 " See supra note 105. 206751 F.2d 72

2016See Compagnie des Bauxites 651 F.2d at 887 (denying an injunction against parallel English litigation). 1999] PARALLEL LITIGATION 967 test and the more liberal Unterweser test identify the protection of the forum's public policy as a consideration in enjoining foreign litigation."4"7 Accordingly, if the first-filed rule is an important forum public policy, then it would be a factor in enjoining the second-filed foreign action.

2016In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (citing Johnson v. Avery, 414 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. 1966) and Russell v. Taylor, 121 Tex. 450 , 458–59, 49 S.W.2d 733, 736 (1932)).

2016The balance of convenience test resembles an inconvenient forum contest under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a).65 The special factors are more vague, but may include the following: (1) the similarity of the claims, though perfect identity is not required;" 67 (2) the relative progress of the two cases; (3) the existence of a forum selection clause;0 (4) a plaintiff's need to litigate that claim individually rather than join a class;69 (5) the need to consolidate related actions; ° 7 (6) multidistrict litigation transfer for pretrial purposes; ' (7) lack of notice of the first-filed claim;72 (8) having jur

2016This case was cited in Colorado River Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). 1999] PARALLEL LITIGATION 823 interstate setting162 In White Light Productions, Inc. v. On The Scene Productions, Inc., the lower court had dismissed the second-filed New York action, deferring to a parallel case in California merely because of the timing in filing.363 The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the dismissal was inappropriate without an evaluation of all forum non conveniens factors.3" Thus, courts confronted with a motion to dismiss because of a parallel actio

2016New York does, however, authorize a discretionary stay or dismissal of a New York action that parallels one in a sister state. 6 New York is one of the states that uses a statute for domestic parallel cases, providing: A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that: ... there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States; the court need not dismiss upon this ground, but may make such order as justice requires.?" New York courts have defined the statute's

2016In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (citing Johnson v. Avery, 414 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. 1966) and Russell v. Taylor, 121 Tex. 450 , 458–59, 49 S.W.2d 733, 736 (1932)).

2016In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (citing Johnson v. Avery, 414 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. 1966) and Russell v. Taylor, 121 Tex. 450 , 458–59, 49 S.W.2d 733, 736 (1932)).

2016Corp. v. Mounties, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 214, 218 (S.D.