Summary
This Seventh Circuit opinion addresses whether a U.S. district court properly afforded comity and collateral estoppel effect to a Panamanian administrative agency’s decision regarding access to an electrical substation. The court affirmed the lower court’s application of comity and issue preclusion but reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ tortious interference claims, noting the district court failed to consider an alternative theory under Illinois law. The case involves international energy infrastructure disputes and cross-border regulatory proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court correctly afforded comity to the ASEP administrative order.
- Whether the district court properly applied collateral estoppel to preclude Avanzalia’s claims.
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Avanzalia’s tortious‑interference claims under Illinois law.
Holdings
- The district court correctly afforded comity; the decision is affirmed.
- The district court properly applied collateral estoppel; the decision is affirmed.
- The district court erred; the grant of summary judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings on the impossibility theory under Restatement §766A.
Key quotations
““Comity is a doctrine of deference based on respect for the judicial decisions of foreign sovereigns [and U.S. states, which are quasi‑sovereigns]. When the foreign judiciary is respected … and the rule on which the finding sought to be given preclusive effect is based doesn’t offend a strong U.S. policy, the federal courts should defer to that finding.”” (at 9)
““A tortious interference claim in Illinois ‘encompasses the situation in which the defendant prevents the plaintiff from performing the contract.’”” (at 20)
Factual background
Avanzalia Panamá and its Spanish affiliate Avanzalia Solar, S.L. built a solar power plant in Panama and sought to connect it to the El Coco substation. Goldwind USA, Inc., through its Panamanian affiliate UEPI, allegedly blocked that connection, prompting administrative proceedings before Panama’s ASEP and subsequent federal litigation. The district court entered summary judgment for Goldwind, finding no genuine issue of material fact.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment to Goldwind on all three asserted claims—comity, collateral estoppel, and tortious interference. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on comity and collateral estoppel and vacated the summary‑judgment disposition on the tortious‑interference claim, remanding for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Consider Restatement §766A (the impossibility theory) in assessing Avanzalia’s tortious‑interference claim.