9 WL 2601359, at *4 (N.D. Ill. August 24, 2009) (staying a second filed action that was filed while a first filed action was pending in state court, even though this action was later removed to federal court, because the claims "[arose] out of the transaction or occurrence that . . . [was] the subject matter of the opposing party's claim" in the action first filed in state court); Donnkenny, Inc. v. Nadler, 544 F. Supp. 166, 170 (D.C.N.Y. 1982) (staying a case due to compulsory counterclaims in earlier filed action, although the first action was filed in state court prior to removal to federal court); Ultronic Sys. Corp. v. Ultronix, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 89, 92 (D.C. Del. 1963) (holding that a suit first filed in state court had precedence over a declaratory judgment proceeding that was duplicative and was commenced prior to the removal of the state court action to federal court), with Hemmerich Indus., Inc. v. Courtland Mfg. Co., Inc., No. 87-8272, 1988 WL 48574 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (citing Hall v. Kieffer, 19 F.R.D. 85 (D.N.D. 1956)) ("Rule 13(a) does not require that opposing claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence be asserted in one action commenced first in state court and removed to federal court after the adverse party has commenced a later, separate action in federal court."). Even assuming the Court adopted the reasoning of the cases more favorable to Defendant on this issue, this would have only resulted in a stay of this action.

It appears that only a handful of district courts have addressed this issue, with differing results. See Donnkenny, Inc. v. Nadler, 544 F.Supp. 166, 170 (D.C.N.Y. 1982) (granting motion to stay case asserting compulsory counterclaims in earlier filed action, despite the fact that the first action was initially filed in state court and removed after second case was filed); Ultronic Systems Corp. v. Ultronix, Inc., 217 F.Supp. 89 (D.C. Del. 1963) (same); Hall v. Kieffer, 19 F.R.D. 85, 86 (D.N.D. Mar. 26, 1956) (holding that Rule 13(a) did not apply where plaintiff filed federal court action before defendant's earlier-filed state court action arising out of the same occurrence was removed); Hemmerich Ind., Inc. v. Courtland Manu. Co., Inc., 1988 WL 48574, *1 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 1988) ("Rule 13(a) does not require that opposing claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence be asserted in one action commenced first in state court and removed to federal court after the adverse party has commenced a later, separate action in federal court"). This Court has "the power to prevent the duplication of litigation" by staying or dismissing Counts II and III. Asset Allocation and Management Co. v. Western Employers Ins. Co., 892 F.2d 566, 572 (7th Cir. 1989).

In such a situation, multiple litigation on the same set of facts is still permissible. [ Hall v. Kieffer, 19 F.R.D. 85 (D.N.D.1956)] Had the first court been a federal court, it would have had the power to enjoin the proceedings herein. [ Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 429 F.2d 1197 (2nd Cir. 1970)] Of course, irrespective of whatever action the Superior Court took, I retain the power to stay the present proceedings in this Court.