giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation," id. at 817.
On January 26, 1995, the California Superior Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the California action on the ground of forum non conveniens. Deloitte has made no claim or showing of inconvenience in this forum. The District of Columbia is convenient to the London insurers, and it is the place where Deloitte's settlement with the government -- the event giving rise to Deloitte's claim against these insurers -- occurred. The California court's order is decisive on the convenience point.
The California court's order also means, as a practical matter, that there is no litigation activity in California.
Thus, neither piecemeal nor duplicative litigation will result from going forward here. Counsel for Deloitte represent that Deloitte has filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court's January 26 stay order and that such appeal will lie as a matter of right, but, at least until that appeal is resolved, nothing will happen in the California case.
I find that considerations of "wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation" weigh against abstention and favor moving ahead with the case at bar, so that the parties can take their discovery and prepare for trial. If, and when, an appellate court in California should reverse the Superior Court's finding of forum non conveniens and vacate its stay order, a motion to reconsider the abstention question will be in order. In the meantime, the discovery and case development efforts of the parties will not have been delayed.
Jurisdiction of the Person
It appears from the face of the complaint and from other materials of record that defendant J. Michael Cook is chairman and chief executive officer of Deloitte; that Deloitte is organized as a general partnership; that Deloitte maintains an office in, is licensed to do business and does do business in the District of Columbia; that Mr. Cook lives in Connecticut and maintains offices there and in New York; and that on several occasions documented by news accounts Mr. Cook has been present in the District of Columbia while engaged in Deloitte's accounting business.
The gist of defendant's motion appears to be, not that Mr. Cook lacks minimum contacts with the District, or that the exertion of personal jurisdiction over him and Deloitte offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, but only that plaintiffs have not yet made the right allegations. If personal jurisdiction over Mr. Cook and Deloitte turns out to be a serious issue in this case, plaintiff will have the burden of proof at trial or in an evidentiary hearing. At this stage of the proceedings, however, plaintiffs have a "relatively light" burden, Welsh v. Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 1980). Their prima facie case is established by the recitations set forth above and by invoking the District of Columbia long-arm statute, D.C. Code Ann. § 13-423(a)(1) (1994). See National Bank of Washington v. Mallery, supra, 669 F. Supp. at 26-29; Abramson v. Wallace, 706 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1989); Reiman v. First Union Real Estate Equity & Mortg., 614 F. Supp. 255 (D.D.C. 1985).
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, and upon review of the whole record, it is this 27th day of February 1995
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss or stay is denied ; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel are to meet and confer promptly pursuant to Local Rule 206 and file their joint Rule 206 statement on or before March 1, 1995.
United States District Judge