01-10-08 A-3694-06T1
In this breach of contract action between companies located
in New Jersey and Brazil, procedural errors committed by
plaintiff in the trial court and in this court preclude a
determination that plaintiff established sufficient minimum
contacts to satisfy its burden of proof on the issue of specific
jurisdiction over the foreign company.
Assuming sufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction,
international comity nonetheless justified dismissal of
plaintiff's complaint even though its New Jersey action was
filed shortly before the defendant filed its action in Brazil
because (1) the claims and counterclaims in both jurisdictions
arose from the same facts and concerned the same legal issues;
(2) plaintiff proceeded on its counterclaim in Brazil without
asking for deference as a matter of comity to its New Jersey
action; (3) substantial discovery proceedings have occurred in
Brazil; and (4) plaintiff has not suggested that Brazil will
provide anything other than a fair resolution of the disputes.
