Larry Romine and Sonia Mitelman v. Compuserve Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the second factor supports jurisdiction where the courthouses in which the state and federal actions are pending are both located in the same city
• concluding that the second factor supports jurisdiction where the courthouses in which the state and federal actions are pending are both located in the same city
• holding that where a state court proceeds has progressed “considerably” further than the parallel federal action, this fact “weighs strongly” in favor abstention
• concluding that “we cannot find that the federal forum in this ease is any less convenient than the state forum, since both actions are pending in courthouses in the same city”
• concluding that two courthouses in Columbus, Ohio were equally convenient, which “counsels against abstention”
• noting that where no property is at issue, the first factor is inapposite and supports exercising jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).