Opinion ID: 389221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: denial of safeguards

Text: 14 Quinton contends that by filing two suits and relying on the first to establish liability in the second, Del Mar is harassing Quinton. 4 Therefore it claims to be entitled to injunctive relief against any further contempt or accounting proceedings in the Los Angeles suit. Quinton argues that the lower court abused its discretion by denying the safeguards. 5 Although federal trial courts have the power to enjoin other proceedings, the decision to enjoin rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will rarely be overturned. Small v. Wageman, 291 F.2d 734, 736 (1st Cir. 1961); Solex Laboratories, Inc. v. Butterfield, 202 F.Supp. 461, 463 (D.Or.1961). 15 Furthermore, this court has held that as a matter of comity, a federal court injunction against proceedings in another federal court will rarely be granted, especially when the courts are within the same circuit. Bergh v. State of Washington, 535 F.2d 505, 507 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 921, 97 S.Ct. 318, 50 L.Ed.2d 288 (1976). We find no abuse of discretion, and affirm the district court's denial of Quinton's requested safeguards. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.