Lauber-Clayton, LLC v. Novus Properties Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding real parties’ evidence “[fell] well below the legal standards” to establish exception to dominant jurisdiction
• clarifying that a counterclaim is compulsory if “it was not the subject of a pending action when the original suit was commenced”
• holding “when two suits are inherently interrelated, a plea in abatement 1 in the second action must be granted”
• applying the dominant jurisdiction rule when a claim was not the subject of a pending action at the time of filing and the subject matter of the claim in the other suits otherwise satisfied the compulsory counterclaim rule
• “ . . . we even expect “a race to the courthouse, [in which case] the winner’s suit should have dominant jurisdiction”
• “If such an inherent relationship exists, we then assess dominant jurisdiction. But if not, then dominant jurisdiction is not an issue, and both suits may proceed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).