UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HIGH WEST CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 25-4335 (EGS)
GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Intervenor John W. Hall’s (“Mr.
Hall”) Motion to Stay. See Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 42. 1 Defendant
Greenberg & Lieberman, LLC (“G&L”) consents to the motion. See
Def.’s Resp. & Consent to Intervenor John Hall’s Mot. to Stay
Proceedings, ECF No. 43. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition,
see Pls.’ Opp’n to Intervenor John W. Hall’s Mot. to Stay
(“Opp’n”), ECF No. 44; and Mr. Hall has filed a reply, see
Reply, ECF No. 45.
1 When citing electronic filings throughout this opinion, the Court cites to the ECF header page number, not the original page number of the filed document.
Upon careful consideration of Mr. Hall’s motion, the
opposition and reply thereto; the applicable law; and for the
reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Mr. Hall’s Motion to
Stay.
I. Background
This lawsuit is one of four related to a partnership
dispute between Mr. Hall and Paul N. Jaber (“Mr. Jaber”)
regarding the ownership of High West Capital Partners LLC (“High
West”), a Nevis Limited Liability Company. Mot. to Stay, ECF No.
42-1 at 8-10. 2 There is no dispute that Mr. Hall has a 50%
interest in High West’s profits and losses. See Opp’n to Mot. to
Intervene, ECF No. 25 at 14 n.2. But whether Mr. Hall is a
member of or has an ownership interest in High West is in
dispute. Mem. Op., ECF No. 41 at 2.
In the instant case, Plaintiffs High West and International
Liquidity, LLC filed a Complaint against G&L, Plaintiffs’ escrow
agent, on December 13, 2025, requesting a declaratory judgment
2 “[T]his action involves several limited liability companies formed under Nevis law, including International Liquidity, LLC and Long GF1, LLC, but ultimately the business was run through High West. International Liquidity and Long GF1 were created to hold certain assets acquired out of High West’s business. Mr. Hall asserts that he is entitled to 50% of the assets of High West, International Liquidity, and Long GF1. However, for convenience, we refer to these collectively as High West.” Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 42-1 at 5 n.1.
2
regarding whether their escrow agreement contains valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement and alleging breach of
fiduciary duty of loyalty. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The Complaint
alleges that Mr. Hall is a “relevant person . . . not named as
defendant[]” due to the Profit Share Agreement between Mr. Hall
and Mr. Jaber, but it also alleges that Mr. Hall does not own
any High West membership interests and is not a manager. Id. ¶
11. Mr. Hall states that Mr. Jaber brought the lawsuit without
Mr. Hall’s knowledge or consent. Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 18
at 8. The Complaint further alleges that there is a deadlock
between Mr. Hall and Mr. Jaber regarding the disbursement of
escrow funds held by G&L and that the funds will need to be made
the subject of an interpleader action to determine Mr. Hall’s
and Mr. Jaber’s “rights.” Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 11. Plaintiffs ask
the Court to issue a Declaratory Judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201(a) which, among other things, finds that the putative
escrow agreement does not contain a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement because it was signed by Mr. Hall, who
“has never been a Manager, Member, or Owner of any Membership
Interests of [High West] and had no actual or apparent authority
to sign on behalf of [High West].” Id. ¶ 38.
The second lawsuit, filed on December 29, 2025, was brought
by High West and Mr. Jaber against Mr. Hall in United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging:
3
(1) civil theft; (2) conversion; and (3) breach of contract. See
Compl., High West Cap. Partners, LLC v. Hall, No. 0:25-cv-62678-AHS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2025) (the “Florida Proceeding”). On
February 27, 2026, Mr. Hall filed a motion to stay those
proceedings pending the resolution of the third lawsuit
described immediately below. See Mot. to Stay Proceedings Or, in
the Alternative, to Dismiss The Compl. For Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction & Failure to State a Claim, High West Cap.
Partners, LLC v. Hall, No. 0:25-cv-62678-AHS (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27,
2026). That motion was granted on September 30, 2026. Order, No.
0:25-cv-62678-AHS (S.D. Fla. Sep. 30, 2026).
On February 7, 2026, Mr. Hall filed a Claim Form and
Statement of Claim in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Saint
Christopher and Nevis, Nevis Circuit (the “Nevis Proceeding”),
against Mr. Jaber, High West, International Liquidity, and Long
GF1 Partners, LLC seeking a declaration regarding Mr. Hall’s
interests in the Defendant LLCs. See generally Ex. I to Opp’n,
ECF No. 44-9. Mr. Hall filed an Amended Claim Form and Statement
of Claim on July 2, 2026, see id.; and the Defendants filed an
Amended Answer on July 31, 2026, see generally Ex. J to Opp’n,
ECF No. 44-10.
On April 10, 2026, Mr. Hall initiated a proceeding against
Mr. Jaber in Hong Kong (“Hong Kong Proceedings”), the location
of High West Assets at a bank named Safari (Asia ) Ltd. See Mot.
4
to Stay, ECF No. 42 at 10. In the Hong Kong Proceedings, Mr.
Hall states that he “seeks injunctive relief, prohibiting Mr.
Jaber from unilaterally removing funds from the Safari account
pending the resolution of the Nevis Proceeding.” Id.
In the pending motion, Mr. Hall moves to stay the instant
case pending the resolution of the Nevis Proceeding. See id. at
1.
II. Legal Standard
A court’s authority to stay proceedings stems from “the
power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,
for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.
248, 254 (1936). Pursuant to this authority, “[a] trial court
has broad discretion to stay all proceedings in an action
pending the resolution of independent proceedings elsewhere,”
Hisler v. Gallaudet Univ., 344 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2004)
(citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254)); including pending the outcome
of foreign litigation, Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Gov’t of
Can., 78 F. Supp. 3d 117, 120 (D.D.C. 2015).
Courts weighing a stay based on foreign
litigation apply a multi-factor balancing
test, considering: the similarity of the
parties, ‘the similarity of the issues, the
order in which the actions were filed, the
adequacy of the alternate forum, the potential
prejudice to either party, the convenience of
the parties, the connection between the
litigation and the United States, and the
5
connection between the litigation and the
foreign jurisdiction.
Id. (quoting LG Display Co. Ltd. v. Obayashi Seikou Co., Ltd.,
919 F. Supp. 2d 17, 24 (D.D.C. 2014). “This list is not
exhaustive, and a district court should examine the ‘totality of
the circumstances.’” Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. Co. of Can. v.
Century Int’l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 2006)
(quoting Finova Cap. Corp. v. Ryan Helicopters U.S.A., Inc., 180
F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 1999)). The party seeking the stay has
the burden of showing that the stay is needed and warranted.
Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
“In the context of parallel proceedings in a foreign court,
a district court should be guided by the principles upon which
international comity is based: the proper respect for litigation
in and the courts of a sovereign nation, fairness to litigants,
and judicial efficiency.” Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. Co. of Can.,
466 F.3d at 94; see also Brinco Mining Ltd. v. Fed. Ins. Co.,
552 F. Supp. 1233, 1240 (D.D.C. 1982). “For two actions to be
considered parallel, the parties in the actions need not be the
same, but they must be substantially the same, litigating
substantially the same issues in both actions.” Royal & Sun
Alliance Ins. Co. of Can., 466 F.3d at 94 (citing Dittmer v.
County of Suffolk, 146 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir. 1998)).
6
III. Analysis
A. The Similarity of the Parties and the Similarity of
the Issues
1. Similarity of the Parties
Mr. Hall, High West, and International Liquidity are
parties in both actions. See generally Dkt., High West Cap.
Partners, LLC v. Greenberg & Lieberman, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-4335
(D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2025); Ex. I to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-9. Mr. Jaber
is not a named party in the instant case, but the Complaint
alleges that he is the sole manager and owner of 100% of the
membership interests of the two plaintiff LLCs, and so he is
clearly involved in the instant case. See Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶
8, 9. Mr. Jaber is a party in the Nevis Proceeding. See Ex. I to
Opp’n, ECF No. 44-9. The two remaining parties–G&L in the
instant case and Long GF1 Partners in the Nevis Proceeding—are
parties only in each respective case. See generally Dkt., High
West Cap. Partners, LLC v. Greenberg & Lieberman, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-4335 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2025); Ex. I to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-9.
“‘[T]he relevant test is whether the parties are
substantially similar,’” not whether they are “‘identical.’”
Sunset Equities Ltd. v. Donald J. Urgo & Assocs., LLC, 22 Civ.
8857, 2024 WL 1195414, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2024) (quoting
Ole Media Mgmt., L.P. v. EMI Apr. Music, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 7249
PAE, 2013 WL 2531277, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013)). The
7
parties in the instant case and in the Nevis Proceeding are not
identical, but since there is only one party in each case that
is not a party in the other case, the Court concludes that the
parties are substantially similar. Accordingly, this factor
weighs in favor of a stay.
2. Similarity of the Issues
In the instant case, Plaintiffs seek to have the Court rule
that the escrow agreement with G&L does not contain a valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement because it was signed by Mr.
Hall, who they allege “has never been a Manager Member, or Owner
of any Membership Interests of [High West] and had no actual or
apparent authority to sign on behalf of [High West].” Compl.,
ECF No. 1 ¶ 38. To determine whether the arbitration agreement
is valid and enforceable, the Court will “need to determine
whether or not Mr. Hall has a membership interest in [High
West].” Mem. Op., ECF No. 41 at 18; see also Opp’n, ECF No. 44
at 17-20 (arguing that this “Court is competent and well
positioned to determine whether [Mr.] Hall is a Member of
HWCP”).
Plaintiffs contend that the issues in this lawsuit are not
similar because the instant case was brought to hold G&L
accountable for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, to secure
the assets with the Court, and for the Court to eventually
oversee the appropriate division of assets. Id. at 14-15. On the
8
other hand, “[t]he central issues in the Nevis proceeding are
whether [Mr.] Hall is entitled to financial or injunctive
recovery against Mr. Jaber.” Id. at 15. Plaintiffs contend that
Mr. Hall has not asked the Court in the Nevis Proceeding to
determine whether he is a member of High West. Id. at 15.
Plaintiffs assert, among other things, that Mr. Hall has only
asked for a declaration from the Nevis Court “that [Mr.] Jaber
‘holds 50%’ of [High West and International Liquidity] shares
‘on trust’ for [Mr.] Hall.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. I to Opp’n,
ECF No. 44-9 at 3-4).
The Amended Claim Form and Statement of Claim filed July
31, 2026 seeks, inter alia, the following relief:
i. A declaration that the 1st Defendant (“Mr
Jaber”) holds 50% of the High West
Capital Shares (as defined in the
Statement of Claim) on trust for the
Claimant (“Mr Hall”) absolutely.
ii. A declaration that Mr Jaber holds 50% of
the International Liquidity Shares (as
defined in the Statement of Claim) on
trust for Mr Hall absolutely.
iii. A declaration that Mr Jaber holds 50% of
the Long GF1 Shares (as defined in the
Statement of Claim) on trust for Mr Hall
absolutely.
Ex. I to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-9 at 2. This language is identical to
the original Claim Form and Statement of Claim filed February
26, 2026. Ex. K to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-11 at 23.
9
To support his claims for relief, Mr. Hall alleges the
following: (1) “Mr. Jaber holds 50% of the High West Capital
Shares as nominee or bare trustee for Mr. Hall,” Ex. I to Opp’n,
ECF No. 44-9 ¶ 19, Ex. K to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-11 ¶ 19; (2) “Mr.
Jaber holds 50% of the International Liquidity Shares as nominee
or bare trustee for Mr. Hall,” Ex. I to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-9 ¶
31, Ex. K to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-11 ¶ 31; and (3) “Mr. Jaber holds
50% of the Long GFI Shares as nominee or bare trustee for Mr.
Hall,” Ex. I to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-9 ¶ 42, Ex. K to Opp’n, ECF
No. 44-11 ¶ 42.
Mr. Hall’s expert on Nevis law, Frank Walwyn (“Mr.
Walwyn”), avers in his declaration that Mr. Hall seeks
“declaratory relief regarding the membership and ownership of
the Nevis Companies.” Decl. of Frank E. Walwyn (“Walwyn Decl.”),
Ex. K to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-11 ¶ 15(a). 3 Mr. Walwyn’s declaration
is based on his review of the original Claim Form and Statement
of Claim, but as explained above, the relevant language is
identical in both the original and the amended claim. Plaintiffs
have not provided expert testimony to rebut Mr. Walwyn’s
explanation of the relief Mr. Hall seeks. The Court therefore
accepts Mr. Walwyn’s description of Mr. Hall’s claims under
3 The declaration was submitted in the Florida Proceeding and provided by Plaintiffs as an attachment to their Opposition briefing. See Ex. K to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-11.
10
Nevis law. Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 44.1 (“In determining foreign law,
the court may consider any relevant material or source,
including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or
admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”).
The same issue is therefore being litigated in both cases—
specifically whether Mr. Hall is a member of or has an ownership
interest in High West. The instant case does involve additional
issues, but whether the Court reaches those issues or they go to
arbitration depends on the answer to the threshold question of
whether Mr. Hall is a member of or has an ownership interest in
High West. Staying the instant case will not prevent this Court
from considering the questions of whether there is a valid
arbitration agreement and whether G&L breached their fiduciary
duties, but it will “permit an underlying dispute to be resolved
first.” Ole Media Mgmt., LP, 2013 WL 2531277, at *4. For all
these reasons, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
B. The Order In Which the Actions Were Filed
The instant case was filed on December 13, 2025, and the
Nevis Proceeding was filed about two and a half months later on
February 26, 2026. Plaintiffs argue that this factor weighs
against a stay for several reasons. First, they claim that Mr.
Hall “suggest[s] that he could not have known until the
Complaint was filed that Plaintiffs would contend he is not a
member of HWCP.” Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 23. However, Plaintiffs
11
misrepresent Mr. Hall’s argument: Mr. Hall argues that he
brought the Nevis proceeding because Mr. Jaber brought this
action without Mr. Hall’s knowledge or consent. Mot. to Stay,
ECF No. 42-1 at 18. Second, they argue that while Mr. Hall
contends that the Nevis Proceeding has a clear end date, he does
not provide one. Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 24. Mr. Hall cites the
Walwyn declaration which states “[i]n theory, the Nevis Claim
could be tried in less than a year. However, if the defendants
mount any threshold challenges to the Nevis Claim, this could
delay its prosecution,” Walwyn Decl., ECF 44-11 ¶ 9(f); and
points out that defendants have answered the Amended Statement
of Claim in the Nevis Proceeding, see Reply, ECF No. 45 at 16.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that while the Nevis litigation is in
its “incipiency,” several motions are fully briefed and pending
in the instant case. Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 24-25.
This factor “does not turn exclusively on the sequence in
which the cases were filed, ‘but rather [involves a comparison]
of how much progress has been made in the two actions.’” Dunkin'
Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Rijay, Inc., No. 06 Civ.
8237(WCC), 2007 WL 1459289, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 17,
2007) (quoting Vill. of Westfield v. Welch's, 170 F.3d 116, 122
(2d Cir. 1999)). Defendants filed an Answer in the Nevis
proceeding on July 31, 2026. See generally Ex. J to Opp’n, ECF
No. 44-10. The parties have provided no information about
12
whether a scheduling order has been issued in that case. Since
Defendants did not mount a threshold challenge, however, the
resolution of the case is not expected to be delayed. See Walwyn
Decl., ECF 44-11 ¶ 9(f). Mr. Walwyn estimates that the claim
could be tried in less than a year, but Mr. Walwyn does not
indicate when that “year” commences. Mr. Walwyn’s declaration is
dated February 27, 2026 and was based on his review of the
initial Claim Form and Statement of Claim, which was filed
February 2, 2026. See generally id. As stated above, Mr. Hall
filed an Amended Statement of Claim on July 2, 2026. See Ex. I
to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-9.
In the instant case, no Answer has been filed and no
scheduling order has been issued. While Plaintiffs assert that
several motions are fully briefed and pending before the Court,
this statement is not accurate. Since Mr. Hall is now a party to
the case, supplemental briefings will be necessary.
The Court concludes that this factor is neutral because
there is no evidence that a scheduling order has been issued in
the Nevis Proceeding where an Answer has been filed, and because
in the case before this Court where no Answer has been filed,
the pending motions will need supplementary briefings since Mr.
Hall is now a party to the case.
13
C. The Adequacy of the Alternative Forum
Plaintiffs argue that this factor weighs against a stay for
several reasons. First,
[e]ven accepting [Mr.] Hall’s
characterization that ‘the heart of this case’
is a partnership dispute . . . the very origin
of Jaber and Hall’s obligations to each other
with respect to HWCP (including the 50/50
profit-and-loss split) is the R[rofit] &
L[oss] Agreement, which affirmatively states
that it ‘will be governed by United States
law.’
Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 25. However, the 50/50 profit and loss
split arises out of High West’s profits and losses, which Mr.
Jaber and Mr. Hall “worked to create, establish and market,” Ex.
F to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-6 at 2; and any partnership dispute
regarding High West is governed by Nevis law.
Plaintiffs point out that Nevis law has nothing to do with
the alleged breach of fiduciary duties they have alleged against
G&L in the instant matter. Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 25. But that is
beside the point because the issue is not whether the Nevis
court should consider the alleged breach of fiduciary duties
claims, but whether the instant case should be stayed pending
the resolution of the “partnership dispute.” Finally, Plaintiffs
assert that “whether dissolution of [High West] is reserved to a
Nevis court is beside the point because Hall’s professed desire
to dissolve HWCP there does not justify a stay here.” Id. at 26.
14
However, whether the Nevis court dissolves High West and whether
a stay is justified in the instant case are different issues.
The Court is persuaded that this factor weighs in favor of
a stay for several reasons. First, High West was organized under
The Nevis Limited Liability Company Ordinance 1995, as amended,
Ex. C to Opp’n, ECF No. 44-3. Accordingly, Nevis law applies to
any partnership dispute involving High West. Second, Plaintiffs
have failed to rebut Mr. Hall’s expert’s averments that Mr. Hall
seeks “declaratory relief regarding the membership and ownership
of the Nevis Companies,” Walwyn Decl., ECF No 44-1 ¶ 15(a); that
“[a] Nevis Court is the most competent court to decide issues
related to Nevis LLCs,” id. ¶ (d); and that “[l]itigants to
proceedings in Nevis are afforded due process,” id. ¶ (e). 4 For
all these reasons, a Nevis court is an adequate forum for
resolving the partnership dispute. Accordingly, this factor
weighs in favor of a stay.
D. The Potential Prejudice to Either Party
Plaintiffs argue that “[a]n indefinite stay of these
proceedings in favor of the Nevis Proceeding—which has barely
4 Mr. Hall relies on the Walwyn Declaration to support his arguments relevant to the comity analysis. Mot., ECF No. 42-1 at 20 & n.5. This declaration was submitted in support of Mr. Hall’s Motion to Stay in the Florida Proceeding. Id. at 20 n.5. Plaintiffs do not object to Mr. Hall’s reliance on the Walwyn Declaration; they instead argue that the declaration “sabotages” Mr. Hall’s motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 24.
15
begun, has no realistic timetable for conclusion, and on its
face does not portend resolution of any issue material to this
case—would severely prejudice Plaintiffs.” Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at
26. The Court rejects each of these arguments. First, the stay
is not indefinite. Rather, it will be lifted once the Nevis
Proceeding has been resolved. See Hulley Enter. Ltd. v. Russian
Federation, 502 F. Supp. 3d 144, 152 n.9 (D.D.C. 1996)
(rejecting the argument that the stay would amount to being
indefinite because “the conclusion of the stay has a clear end
date pending resolution of” proceedings in a foreign court)
(citation modified). Second, as explained above, the Nevis
Proceeding has not just “barely begun;” rather, an Answer has
been filed. Third, Plaintiff’s assertion that the Nevis
Proceeding “has no realistic timetable for conclusion” is
unsupported by the record in the case. The only evidence is that
the Nevis Proceedings could take a year to resolve, although as
the Court noted above, the starting point for that year is not
clear. Finally, the Court has already rejected Plaintiffs’
assertion that they would be prejudiced by the stay because “the
Nevis Proceeding . . . on its face does not portend resolution
of any issue material to this case.” Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 26.
Rather, the Nevis Proceeding will resolve the threshold question
in the instant case–whether Mr. Hall is a member of or has an
ownership interest in High West.
16
Plaintiffs also argue that they would be prejudiced by a
stay because it “would result in over $8 million sitting in
purgatory in the Court’s registry and another $27 million
marooned in overseas accounts controlled by G&L, the defendant
here accused of serious breaches of fiduciary duty which all
parties agree has no interest in the assets it holds in escrow.”
Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 26. Plaintiffs’ characterizations ignore
that the $8 million is already in the Court’s registry based on
their own request and with G&L’s consent. And in their
Opposition to Mr. Hall’s Motion to Intervene, Plaintiffs argued
the opposite: “[a]ny of [HW’s] assets that can be moved into the
Court’s registry can just as easily be moved out. This is not
difficult.” Opp’n to Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 25 at 20.
If Plaintiffs lack access to another $27 million pending the
resolution of the Nevis Proceeding, it was they who chose to
file the lawsuit without including Mr. Hall, which he states
prompted him to file the Nevis Proceeding and whom the Court has
ruled is entitled to intervene as of right. See Mem. Op., ECF
No. 41.
Not staying the instant case could, however, prejudice Mr.
Hall because of the possibility of inconsistent determinations
by this Court and the Nevis Court on the threshold question of
whether Mr. Hall is a member of or has an ownership interest in
High West.
17
For all these reasons, the Court concludes that this factor
weighs in favor of a stay.
E. The Convenience of the Parties
Plaintiffs argue that this factor weighs against a stay
because Nevis is not a convenient forum to resolve this lawsuit.
Opp’n, ECF No. 44 at 28-29. However, the issue is not whether
the instant case should be resolved by a Nevis court, but
whether it should be stayed pending resolution of the threshold
question. Plaintiffs cannot contend that litigating in Nevis is
inconvenient as they chose to incorporate under the laws of
Nevis. Cf. Louis Vuitton N. Am., Inc. v. Schenker S.A., No. 17-CV-07445 (DLI) (PK), 2019 WL 1507792, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31,
2019) (observing that Plaintiffs “cannot be prejudiced by
[their] own choice of forum”).
F. The Connection Between the Litigation and the United
States and the Foreign Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs argue that this factor counsels against a stay,
stating that “[t]his lawsuit has little to no connection to
Nevis and a substantial connection to the United States,”
pointing out that: (1) G&L does not operate in the United States
and the alleged fiduciary breached occurred in the United
States; (2) the Partnership and Loss Agreement between Hall and
Jaber is governed by United States law; and (3) High West does
18
not conduct its primary business functions in Nevis. Opp’n, ECF
No. 44 at 29.
The Court is persuaded that this factor weighs in favor of
a stay because the threshold question in the instant case is
whether Mr. Hall is a member of or has an ownership interest in
High West. Since that question will be determined under Nevis
law, it is inaccurate to characterize the instant case as having
“little or no connection to Nevis.” The Court therefore rejects
Plaintiffs’ argument. Furthermore, staying the instant case
pending the determination of that issue under Nevis law in the
Nevis Proceeding is consistent with principles of international
comity since High West was incorporated under Nevis law. See
Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. Co. of Can., 466 F.3d at 94; Detroit
Int’l Bridge Co., 78 F. Supp. 3d at 122 (observing that
“[p]rinciples of international comity weigh heavily in favor of
a stay particularly since [Plaintiff] seeks a decision in a U.S.
court of its rights under Canadian law”).
19
IV. Conclusion
Based on the Court’s examination of the totality of the
circumstances, the Court concludes that a stay is warranted for
the reasons explained above, and the Court GRANTS Mr. Hall’s
Motion to Stay, ECF No. 42.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
September 30, 2026
20