Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. C.R. England, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that filing a suit after a threat of litigation “satisfies the definition of an anticipatory suit”
• stating that “[i]f a party is not found to be necessary, the court’s analysis stops at that point because a party cannot be ‘indispensable’ if it is not ‘necessary’”
• holding, as filed in bad faith a declaratory action filed three days after the plaintiff received a letter and draft complaint from the defendant indicating the defendant would file suit in a week
• holding, as filed in bad faith a declaratory action filed three days after the plaintiff received a letter and draft complaint from the defendant indicating the defendant would file suit in a week
• reasoning that the absent parties were not necessary under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) because, “[i]n short, there is nothing for the court or a jury to decide with regard to the liability of [an absent party to the plaintiff]”
• concluding the defendant’s filing was improper because it filed a declaratory action seeking resolution of the same questions as those in the plaintiff’s complaint three days after receiving letters from the plaintiff indicating that a lawsuit was imminent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).