SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) [947A 

On appeal, appellant contends that the Illinois injunction is 

not enforceable in Nevada and that the district court abused its discretion 

when it dismissed his action on its own motion. Having reviewed the 

record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

when it declined to exercise jurisdiction over appellant's action for 

annulment. The doctrine of comity "is a principle of courtesy by which the 

courts of one jurisdiction may give effect to the laws and judicial decisions 

of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect." Gonzales-Alpizar v. 

Griffith, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, 317 P.3d 820, 826 (2014) (internal quotation 

omitted). Comity is appropriately invoked according to the sound 

discretion of the trial court, Mianecki v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 99 

Nev. 93, 97-98, 658 P.2d 422, 424-25 (1983), and may be raised sua sponte, 

see Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 855 (9th Cir. 

1992). The first-to-file rule is a doctrine of comity providing that "where 

substantially identical actions are proceeding in different courts, the court 

of the later-filed action should defer to the jurisdiction of the court of the 

first-filed action by either dismissing, staying, or transferring the laterfiled suit." SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 

1089 (S.D. Cal. 2002). The two actions need not be identical, only 

substantially similar. Inherent.comv. Martindale—Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 

2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006). 

Here, the district court applied the first-to-file rule finding 

that the first-filed Illinois action and the later-filed Nevada action 

involved the same parties and sought to resolve the shared issue of the 

termination of the parties' marriage. The district court further found that 

considerations of wise judicial administration and comprehensive 

disposition of litigation counseled in favor of applying the first-to-file rule 

2 
Saitta 

J. 

ibbons Pickering 

and extending comity to its Illinois sister-court. Under these 

circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it 

invoked the first-to-file rule and determined that the Illinois court was the 

appropriate forum to determine the legal status of the parties' marriage. 

This determination also supported the district court's decision to dismiss 

the complaint, and because the first-to-file rule supports dismissal in this 

circumstance,' the district court's additional reliance on forum non 

conveniens is unnecessary to address. SAES Getters S.p.A. 219 F. Supp. 

2d at 1089; see also Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 

592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) (providing that this court will affirm 

a district court order if it reached the correct result). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

, J. 

cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge 

David Kalo Neidert 

Wendy Sherry 

Churchill County Clerk 

'We conclude that there was no due process violation as appellant 

addressed the district court's invocation of the first-to-file rule before the 

dismissal in his motion to reconsider the stay order. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A allgtio