## Facts

- MGM/UA licensed ARD (through Degeto) exclusive German-language telecast rights to certain films and TV works within a defined German-speaking territory; Turner later succeeded to MGM/UA’s position.
- ARD paid about $60 million for the rights, and the agreement authorized broadcasting by “all means and methods now or hereafter known,” expressly including satellite transmission.
- Because satellite transmissions could extend beyond territorial borders, the agreement contemplated unavoidable “overspill” reception outside the licensed territory without providing a numeric boundary.
- In 1991, ARD began using the ASTRA 1B fixed satellite service (FSS) system rather than direct broadcast satellite (DBS); FSS reception was easier, and ASTRA’s footprint covered most of Europe, far beyond the licensed territory.
- In 1993, Turner learned ARD planned to broadcast Turner-licensed programming via ASTRA and asserted this exceeded permissible overspill and breached the agreement.
- ARD filed first in Germany for declaratory relief regarding its rights to use ASTRA; Turner filed shortly thereafter in the Northern District of Georgia seeking injunctive relief for breach of contract.
- The U.S. district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay and issued a preliminary injunction barring ASTRA broadcasts.
- While the U.S. case was pending, a German court issued a merits judgment: ARD had no absolute right under the agreement to broadcast via ASTRA, but could do so subject to payment of an increased fee to be set later, given changed technology and ARD’s public-law programming obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether, after a foreign merits judgment in parallel proceedings, a U.S. federal court should stay or dismiss domestic litigation under principles of international comity and sound judicial administration.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to stay the case and by issuing a preliminary injunction inconsistent with the foreign court’s resolution.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the U.S. action should be stayed in deference to the German proceedings and judgment.
- The court declined to resolve the contract’s ultimate meaning in the U.S. forum while parallel foreign adjudication had already reached the merits.

## Legal Principles

- International comity may justify staying domestic litigation when a competent foreign court has adjudicated substantially the same dispute on the merits.
- In deciding whether to defer, courts consider risks of inconsistent judgments, judicial economy, fairness to the parties from duplicative litigation, and the foreign sovereign’s interest in adjudicating disputes tied to its regulatory and public-law framework.
- Deference is more appropriate when the foreign forum provides fair, adequate procedures and there is no showing of bias or fundamental unfairness.
- When comity warrants a stay, injunctive relief that effectively negates a foreign merits judgment is generally improper and may be vacated.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that comity and efficient judicial administration required staying the U.S. contract action after a German court had already entered a merits judgment addressing the same licensing dispute, and it vacated the U.S. preliminary injunction that barred broadcasts the German court had conditionally permitted.


Turner Ent. Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512 (11th Cir. 1994)