Sometimes people do what is called forum shopping and file a law suit in another jurisdiction, if not another country, because they believe that the laws will be more favorable to them. Sometimes they even file someplace else after they got an unfavorable ruling here and want to try to take a second bite at the apple.

In most cases, another US court will not hear the matter if it has been adjudicated elsewhere. That is not always the case when you are dealing with courts in foreign countries. While there is a notion called “comity”, which is refers to courts of one state or jurisdiction respecting the laws and judicial decisions of other jurisdictions – whether state, federal or international – not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and mutual respect, this does not always occur.

What is the remedy, however, when the loser here seeks to have a court in another jurisdiction hear the case? Further, is the issue complicated if the piece of property at issue is not in New Jersey, but in another state or country? Can a party here ask the New Jersey Court to order the other party to withdraw the foreign law suit or face sanctions here in New Jersey.

The answer to the last question is yes, as was exemplified in the unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division decision in the case of S.M. v. R.R.C. released on January 23, 2025.

In this case, the parties divorced in 2015 and agreed to sell certain property in India. The plaintiff refused to cooperate with the sale of certain property and also ignored several court orders requiring her to sign a Power of Attorney allowing the defendant to act on the sales. The refusal to comply with court orders resulted in the imposition of sanctions and award of counsel fees. Facing further sanctions, she eventually signed the POA in 2021.

In October 2023, the parties finally received their first offer to purchase the properties in the 8 years that they had been on the market. The offer was both for cash and above market value. Plaintiff refused to cooperate again leading to the matter to return to court. Her reason for refusing to comply was that she filed a partition action in India. Plaintiff essentially admitted forum shopping.

As part of defendant’s motion, he sought to have plaintiff be compelled with withdraw the Indian action or face sanctions which the court granted. Of note, the decision states:

While acknowledging New Jersey courts do not have jurisdiction over properties located in India or litigation filed in India, the judge found she had “jurisdiction over the plaintiff who consented to the jurisdiction when she filed a complaint for divorce in [New Jersey] and signed a[n MSA] that involved these properties.”

Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision to require plaintiff to withdraw the Indian law suit. In doing so, the Appellate Division held:

Nor did the Family Part judge err in ordering plaintiff to “immediately withdraw any legal proceedings she filed in India,” or face sanctions. We recognize New Jersey courts cannot direct a court in India to take a particular action. See Second Nat’l Bank of Phila. v. Thompson, 141 N.J. Eq. 188, 193 (Ch. 1947) (“[I]t is well recognized that courts of equity have no power to sit in judgment on the lawful acts of other tribunals and have no jurisdiction to try their acts to see whether they . . . have committed errors . . . .”). Nor can New Jersey courts assert jurisdiction over property in India. See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 (1958) (“The basis of [in rem] jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum [s]tate.”).

However, New Jersey courts can, under limited circumstances, order a litigant within their jurisdiction to withdraw a foreign court proceeding. “There can be no doubt of the power of a court of equity to impose restraints upon persons within the control of its process against action beyond the state.” O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 6 N.J. 170, 178 (1951). While a litigant may
“[o]rdinarily . . . go abroad for such remedies and relief as may be available in the jurisdiction of [their] choice[,] . . . a court of equity has the undoubted power to enjoin those subject to its jurisdiction from seeking relief in a foreign proceeding which would not be compatible with equity and right conscience.” Ibid. “Th[is] restraint is directed against the litigants, not the foreign jurisdiction.” Ibid. (emphasis added).

Though the power to enjoin litigants from prosecuting foreign actions “is a delicate one[,] it will be conscientiously exercised whenever the true interests of justice so require.” Trs. of Princeton Univ. v. Tr. Co. of N.J., 22 N.J. 587, 598 (1956). A court may issue such an injunction to (1) avoid “vexation and oppression,” ibid.; (2) “preserve the court’s prior jurisdiction over a particular controversy,” ibid.; or (3) prevent a litigant from “evading some established policy of the jurisdiction where the parties are domiciled.” Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., 74 N.J. Eq. 457, 481 (Ch. 1908).

Here, the court noted that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff because she is a New Jersey resident, filed for divorce in New Jersey, executed the Marital Settlement Agreement in New Jersey and litigated the issue extensively in New Jersey for 8 years. The Appellate Division concluded the discussion of this issue by noting that:

Plaintiff’s India Partition Action would force defendant to have a court in India enforce the MSA he signed in New Jersey, deprive New Jersey courts of jurisdiction over a New Jersey divorce and MSA, and evade New Jersey’s policy of enforcing MSAs. Thus, we are satisfied the judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering plaintiff to withdraw her India Partition Action.

Not surprisingly, issues like these come up quite often. But this decision makes pretty clear that you can’t freely take an issue that you lost on to another jurisdiction with impunity.

_______________________________

    Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Department of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys. Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973) 994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.