There has been extensive pre-trial discovery and the selection of a trial date is imminent. The North Carolina action, on the other hand, is in its infancy. There has been discovery on both of these issues in the New York action. The request for sanctions is based upon a supposed pattern of Champion's counsel in fragmenting litigation to suit its clients' litigations strategies. The Court notes that plaintiff's law firm is not exactly minuscule in size.
Champion opposes the grant for injunctive relief, essentially on the following three grounds.
The first is that the claims which it asserts in the North Carolina action are separate and distinct from Network's claims pending before this Court, and therefore, the North Carolina action can pose no threat to the subject matter of the New York action, nor do anything to render a judgment in the New York action ineffectual. The second is that as a general rule, a court should not deprive a plaintiff of the right to sue in a forum of its choice. Champion notes its own convenience is served by proceeding in North Carolina, where it is headquartered, and points to the lack of a compulsory counterclaim rule in New York law. Here, there are bare allegations ofharassment and bad faith, unsupported by any factual showing other than mention of the apparent disparity in size between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the presence of defendant's influential corporate parent in our sister state. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to CPLR 6301.