Opinion ID: 433759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Concurrent Jurisdiction

Text: 60 The sufficiency of jurisdictional contacts with both the United States and England results in concurrent jurisdiction to prescribe. Both forums may legitimately exercise this power to regulate the events that allegedly transpired as a result of the asserted conspiracy. 61 Concurrent jurisdiction does not necessarily entail conflicting jurisdiction. The mere existence of dual grounds of prescriptive jurisdiction does not oust either one of the regulating forums. Thus, each forum is ordinarily free to proceed to a judgment. 62 In the current situation, appellants charge that the district court abused its discretion by forbidding them from joining the parallel proceeding in the English courts. They argue that this result is compelled both by principles of comity and by respect for a country's paramount interest in controlling the remedies available to its nationals. Before we can fully consider the extent of appellants' rights based on comity and Laker's nationality to participate in the English proceedings, we examine whether the district court's injunction contravenes the well-established limits on the use of in personam injunctions against litigation in foreign jurisdictions.