Legal Opinion
Bridgeport MacHines, Inc. v. Alamo Iron Works, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided July 9, 1999No. 3:98CV313(JBA)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON ALAMO IRON WORKS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6) FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER [DOC. #54]
ARTERTON, District Judge.
Defendant, Alamo Iron Works, Inc., (“Alamo Iron Works”), moves to dismiss this action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that this Court should exercise its discretion to abstain from accepting jurisdiction over Bridgeport Machine’s declaratory judgment claim since these matters are more suited to resolution in the pending action in Texas state court, or in the alternative, to stay this action in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Peerless Insurance v. DislaDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1998
- Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. v. La Soul, Inc.District Court, D. Vermont · 1997
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bacardi, U.S.A., Inc. v. Premier Beverage, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2005
- Konover Construction Corp. v. Royal Indemnity Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2005