Summary
recognizing rule and requiring stay of later filed Florida action in favor of previously filed Canadian action
Summary of this case from Fla. Crushed Stone v. Travelers IndemOpinion
No. 84-1468.
January 16, 1985.
Petition for review from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Mary E. Lupo, Acting Circuit Judge.
Michael W. Moskowitz and Kenneth A. Rubin of Goldberg, Young Borkson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Hywel Leonard of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks review of an order denying his motion to stay proceedings filed against him in Florida in deference to the prior and concurrent jurisdiction of a Canadian Court over an essentially identical suit. We have certiorari jurisdiction. See Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We grant the writ and quash the order.
The trial court clearly departed from the essential requirements of law by refusing to decline jurisdiction as a matter of comity. See Bradley Investment, Inc. v. Vimy Investment, Inc., 359 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). A grant of stay is appropriate where two actions are pending simultaneously which involve the same parties and substantially the same causes of action. See Thomas v. English, 448 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.