Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. Granger

John Granger (defendant) worked for Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. (Ingersoll) (plaintiff) in Illinois before transferring to Brussels to work for a Belgian subsidiary of Ingersoll. After Granger’s employment with the Belgian subsidiary was terminated, Granger sued Ingersoll and the subsidiary in a Belgian court to recover salary and benefits. While the Belgian lawsuit was pending, Ingersoll filed an action in an Illinois state court seeking a declaratory judgment that Granger was not entitled to any further benefits and the return of payment advances and seeking to enjoin Granger from proceeding with the Belgian suit. Granger removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss based on the pendency of the Belgian suit. The district court denied Granger’s motion to dismiss, finding that it could exercise jurisdiction over the dispute at the same time as the Belgian court. Granger prevailed in the Belgian lawsuit and was awarded a money judgment against Ingersoll. Granger then motioned the district court to dismiss Ingersoll’s claims based on res judicata, or in the alternative, to stay the action until the appeals in the Belgian suit were decided. The district court stayed the action pending the outcome of Ingersoll’s appeal of the Belgian court’s judgment. After the Belgian appellate courts affirmed the judgment, Granger filed a counterclaim in the district court action seeking to enforce the Belgian judgment. The district court enforced the Belgian judgment against Ingersoll. Ingersoll appealed, arguing that the district court had erred in staying the action.