Turner Entertainment Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH

25 F.3d 1512 (11th Cir. 1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · June 29, 1994

Summary

The Eleventh Circuit considered a dispute over whether German public broadcasters could transmit licensed television works through the ASTRA satellite system despite the license agreement's territorial limitations. The court addressed international abstention, comity, parallel proceedings, and the effect of a German judgment permitting the broadcasts subject to an increased fee. It held that the preliminary injunction should be vacated and that the American litigation should be stayed in deference to the German proceedings.

Holdings

  1. A federal court with jurisdiction may stay an action in deference to parallel foreign proceedings when international comity, fairness to the litigants, and efficient use of judicial resources overwhelmingly favor deference, particularly after the foreign court has rendered a merits judgment. Under the circumstances, a stay rather than dismissal was appropriate because the German appeal and fee determination remained unresolved.
  2. The preliminary injunction must be vacated because the same international-comity, fairness, and judicial-efficiency concerns supporting a stay of the American action made it inappropriate to enjoin ARD's broadcasts or interfere with the ongoing German proceedings.
  3. The German court's use of supplemental interpretation to fill an unforeseen contractual gap and permit ASTRA broadcasts for an increased fee was not inconsistent with the agreement, Georgia contract law, general common-law principles, or fundamental notions of decency and fairness.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the federal court should stay the American contract litigation in deference to parallel German proceedings after the German court had rendered a merits judgment.
  2. Whether the preliminary injunction barring ARD from broadcasting the licensed works over ASTRA should remain in effect while the German proceedings continued.

Disposition

vacated

Cases Cited (13)

  • Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-18, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 1246-47, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976)(followed)
  • Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. Granger, 833 F.2d 680, 682, 685-89 (7th Cir. 1987)(relied_on)
  • Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 926-27 (D.C. Cir. 1984)(relied_on)
  • Continental Time Corp. v. Swiss Credit Bank, 543 F. Supp. 408, 410 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)(relied_on)
  • Ronar, Inc. v. Wallace, 649 F. Supp. 310, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)(relied_on)
  • Caspian Investments, Ltd. v. Vicom Holdings, Ltd., 770 F. Supp. 880, 882-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)(relied_on)
  • Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64, 165, 205-06, 16 S. Ct. 139, 143-44, 159-60, 40 L. Ed. 95 (1895)(followed)
  • Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1981)(relied_on)
  • Black & Decker Corp. v. Sanyei America Corp., 650 F. Supp. 406, 408 (N.D. Ill. 1986)(relied_on)
  • Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S. Ct. 275, 280, 83 L. Ed. 285 (1939)(relied_on)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…