SST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. Chapman

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that motions “to stay proceedings in a federal action based on the existence of a concurrently pending state civil action . . . [are] governed by the principles of federal abstention doctrine”
• noting that the five-factor test “has been applied to stay a federal action in light of a concurrently pending federal action (either because the claim arises from the same nucleus of facts or because the pending action would resolve a controlling point of law)”
• “A related aspect of piecemeal litigation ... is whether resolution in one forum will resolve the claims as to all parties.”
• abstention argument rejected where defendants claimed that “adjudication in Delaware will substantially resolve even the asserted federal securities claim by resolving the underlying factual issues which allegedly support it”
• “The language referring to where ‘any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred,’ has been held to apply to civil cases.” (citing Grossman v. Young, 70 F. Supp. 970 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)
• “The language referring to where ‘any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred,’ has been held to apply to civil cases.” (citing Grossman v. Young, 70 F. Supp. 970 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).