## Facts

- Abdullah Sayid Rajab Al-Rifai & Sons W.L.L. (ASRR), a Kuwaiti trading and contracting company, acted for years as a sales representative in Kuwait for McDonnell Douglas entities under a series of representation agreements beginning in 1974.
- The agreements generally required ASRR to solicit and promote sales (but not consummate them) in exchange for commissions on certain sales, including military aircraft transactions.
- In 1994, ASRR filed litigation in Kuwait against McDonnell Douglas International Sales Corporation (MDISCO), alleging wrongful termination and nonpayment of commissions relating to aircraft sales, including F-18 sales to Kuwait.
- The Kuwaiti court ordered an accounting and reserved judgment; the Kuwaiti case remained pending for nearly three years when ASRR filed the U.S. action.
- In July 1997, ASRR sued McDonnell Douglas Foreign Sales Corporation (MDFSC) in federal court in Missouri (diversity jurisdiction), seeking money due for commissions allegedly earned under a representation agreement, including a claimed 1% commission under a 1985 agreement.
- MDFSC moved to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the U.S. case based on the pending Kuwaiti litigation; the court temporarily stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may dismiss a diversity action seeking money damages on international comity/abstention grounds due to related pending foreign litigation.
2. Whether the court should stay the U.S. damages action in deference to the pending Kuwaiti proceedings.

## Decision

- The court denied MDFSC’s motion to dismiss.
- The court denied MDFSC’s alternative motion to stay.
- The court vacated the prior discovery stay, allowing discovery and the U.S. action to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have a strong obligation to exercise properly conferred jurisdiction; abstention is exceptional, particularly in actions at law for money damages.
- Under abstention limits applied to damages actions, dismissal is generally unavailable; at most, a stay may be considered only with a compelling justification.
- Related foreign proceedings do not justify deference where the foreign action is not clearly duplicative or adequate, including when the foreign case involves different parties and carries substantial delay or uncertainty.
- Comity and efficiency concerns do not outweigh proceeding with a diversity damages case when parallel foreign litigation does not reliably resolve the U.S. dispute.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dismiss or stay a diversity contract action for commissions despite ongoing Kuwaiti litigation, finding that damages claims should proceed and that the foreign proceeding’s different parties, prolonged accounting, and uncertainty did not warrant deference.


Abdullah Sayid Rajab Al-Rifai & Sons W.L.L. v. McDonnell Douglas Foreign Sales Corp., 988 F. Supp. 1285 (E.D. Mo. 1997)