RE:Utah Denial Ucore Motion to Stay Plaintiff IBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. ("IBC") and Defendant Ucore Rare Metals Inc. ("Ucore") are currently litigating similar claims in two different venues-in this court and in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Canada. Although it does not dispute that this case falls within the court's subject matter jurisdiction, Ucore argues that this court should abstain from exercising that jurisdiction as a matter of comity to the Canadian court. Relying on the Colorado River abstention doctrine, as extended by many lower courts to apply in the international context, Ucore to dismiss or, in the <:1-ltemative, to="" stay="" proceedings="" in="" this="" court.="" dkt.="">uits are parallel if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in different forums." Fox, 16 F.3d at 1081 ( citation omitted). To determine whether suits are parallel, a court must "examine the state [ or international] proceedings as they actually exist"-not as they "could have been brought in theory." Id. (citation omitted). -------- Suits need not be identical to be parallel, D.A. Osguthorpe Family v. ASC Utah, 705 F.3d 1223, 1233 (10th Cir. 2013), but "any doubt" on this score should be resolved "in favor of exercising federal jurisdiction." Allen v. Board of Educ., 68 F.3d 401,403 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although the question of whether the proceedings here and in Canada are parallel appears to present a close call ( though perhaps less close ifIBC's recent motion to amend its complaint to add claims alleging trademark infringement and defamation is granted, see Dkt. No. 43; Dkt. No. 43-1), the court need not decide this issue. For, as explained below, the court finds that even if the proceedings are parallel, the circumstances here are not so "extraordinary" as to justify abstention. ------ Although Ucore did file first, its lawsuit at that point was based on allegedly false statements made by !BC-statements not at issue here-rather than a contract claim. See Dkt. No. 8-1 ,r 18 ("The issue in this proceeding is narrow and arises out of a false press release issued by IBC on November 26, 2018."). Instead, IBC was the first to file contract claims.----- What is truly at issue, then, is not whether the individual defendants can be sued at all, but only which venue is more convenient for them. Finally, at the hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs' counsel represented that Plaintiffs will not seek to serve the individual defendants while they are in Utah to testify or otherwise participate in this litigation and will not rely on these individuals' presence in Utah for these purposes to support Plaintiffs' argument that the court has personal jurisdiction over them. See Oral Argument 34:30-35:30. These representations appear to eliminate Ucore's principal objection to litigating in this court. In the end, while some of the Kozeny factors do weigh in favor of abstention, neither any of these factors individually nor all of them taken together present the sort of "extraordinary" circumstances that would justify abstention. See Edge Investment, 927 F.3d at 554 ("t is not enough that the factors favoring deferral outnumber those opposed ( or neutral). Rather, the factors favoring deferral must themselves be exceptional."). ------ At most, dual proceedings in Nova Scotia and this court pose a risk of duplicative effort and inconsistent outcomes. The circumstances here thus present little more than a "garden-variety example of two lawsuits proceeding concurrently in two courts." Id. at 556. If that were enough to support abstention, then such circumstances "would seemingly support abstention in every federal case that has a parallel state [ or here, foreign] case." Id. ( citation omitted). But even in the international context, the Colorado River doctrine must be "confined to its banks." Id. at 550. Absent circumstances more extraordinary and justifications much clearer than those presented here, this court will not depart from its "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise the jurisdiction that the Constitution and Congress have given it. For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ucore's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay. IT IS SO ORDERED. ------- ** Forgot this......... In light of these additional contract claims, Ucore contends that Plaintiffs' "numerous claims" that IBC "was defrauded into entering the Option Agreement"-which U core asserts form the gravamen of Plaintiffs' lawsuit in the District of Utah-"will be fully litigated in the Canadian proceedings as either a defense or counterclaim." Dkt. No. 8 at 5; see also Dkt. No. 29 at 1 ("The suits include the same parties, controversy, and basic claims and there is nothing barring Plaintiffs from asserting the claims they raise here as counterclaims in Canada."). For now, however, Plaintiffs have "not brought any claims in the Canadian action and remain[] purely[] defendant there." -------- I think Dorsey has rounds for Appeal, but almost at this point, I just want to see you finally nailed down into actually answering for your "Arguments."