Opinion ID: 2315756
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Satisfying the Burden of Proof

Text: A motion to stay or dismiss a prior pending Delaware action in favor of a later filed action should not be granted by a trial court unless it finds that the refusal to grant the motion would result in inconvenience and hardship to the movant. ANR Pipeline Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 525 A.2d at 992. Moreover, the movant has the burden of proving inconvenience and hardship with particularity. Parvin v. Kaufmann, Del. Supr., 236 A.2d 425, 428 (1967). In Parvin, this Court upheld the denial of a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds finding: [The] defendants have not shown with any particularity that hardship will be imposed upon them by the trial of this case in Delaware. The defendants have thus failed to sustain their burden of proof. An action may not be dismissed upon bare allegations of inconvenience without an adequate showing of particulars of the hardships relied upon. 236 A.2d at 428. Williams argues that, in order for Apache to meet its burden of proof, this Court's opinion in ANR Pipeline required Apache, as the moving party, to make a threshold showing of inconvenience and hardship before the multiple forum non conveniens factors identified in Cryo-Maid are examined. [2] Thus, according to Williams, the inconvenience and hardship language in ANR Pipeline mandates a separate inquiry prior to any consideration of the multiple forum non conveniens factors set forth in Cryo-Maid. The approach suggested by Williams bifurcates and inverts the proper unitary analysis which is described in this Court's prior holdings, including its holding in ANR Pipeline. The reference to inconvenience and hardship in ANR Pipeline was made in the context of defining the burden of proof which is placed upon the party who moves to stay a valid first filed action in Delaware. This Court's opinion in ANR Pipeline specifically stated that the factors to be considered in ruling on a motion to stay a [first filed] Delaware action in favor of subsequent litigation are set forth in General Foods Corp. v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., Del. Supr., 198 A.2d 681 (1964). ANR Pipeline Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 525 A.2d at 992. Thus, the holding in ANR Pipeline was a reaffirmation of the principle that the existence of a first filed action in Delaware gives rise to a burden of proof that the moving party must meet within the confines of the multiple forum non conveniens factors identified by this Court in Cryo-Maid.