seeking damages and injunctive relief. for; (1) intentional interference with contract and conspiracy; (2) intentional interference with prospective-business advantage and conspiracy; (3) inducing breach of contract and conspiracy; (4) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and conspiracy; and (5) unfair competition and conspiracy- The defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint or stay this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 based on the ongoing California lawsuit. II. Discussion A. Declaratory Judgment Act At the outset, the Court finds that this lawsuit is governed by federal rather than state law because the Declaratory Judgment Act addresses procedural as opposed to substantive rights. See Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Born, 897 F.Supp. 122, 126 & n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>); De Feo v. Procter & Gamble Co., 831 F.Supp.
holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law holding that the declaratory judgment act as opposed to state law governs cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under an erie analysis holding in diversity cases without any federal question state law governs district courts determination of whether to recognize a foreign country judgment