Hilton v. Apple Inc

Filing 27

ORDER Transferring Action to Central District of California (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DEBRA HILTON, on Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated,

No. C-13-2167 EMC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
APPLE INC.,
12
13

Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
15
16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

On October 1, 2013, this Court issued an order granting-in-part Defendant Apple Inc.’s

18

Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings. (Dkt. No. 24). The Court concluded that the first-to-file

19

rule applied. Specifically, the Court concluded that the case of Missaghi v. Apple Inc., et al., No.

20

13-cv-2003-GAF, currently proceeding before Judge Gary Feess in the Central District of

21

California, is an earlier filed action which encompasses the subject matter and parties of the instant

22

case. However, the Court indicated that it was inclined to transfer this action rather than dismiss or

23

stay the case pending resolution of Missaghi. Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause

24

as to why this action should not be transferred to the Central District of California. (Dkt. No. 24, at

25

17-18). On October 10, 2013, the parties filed a joint case management statement which included

26

their responses to the order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 25). For the foregoing reasons, the Court

27

TRANSFERS this action to the Central District of California pursuant to the first-to-file rule.

28

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION

Apple does not oppose transferring this action to the Central District. (Dkt. No. 25, at 1-2).

3

Plaintiff opposes transfer, arguing that this Court should stay the instant action pending resolution of

4

the Missaghi case. Plaintiff argues that Missaghi likely will be dismissed in the coming weeks, that

5

this case is more conveniently litigated in this district (a fact Apple has previously acknowledged),

6

and that the parties have already agreed to attend private mediation in December 2013.

7

The first to file rule was developed to “serve[] the purpose of promoting efficiency” and to

U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979). The Court finds that these principles would

10

be best served by transferring this action to the Central District of California where it may be able to

11
For the Northern District of California

“avoid placing an unnecessary burden on the federal judiciary.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v.

9

United States District Court

8

give this case coordinated treatment with Missaghi. Even if Missaghi is dismissed in the near future

12

without leave to amend, this action would still be before a court which has gained experience with

13

the allegations relating to the iPhone 4 and 4S and the applicable legal principles involved by virtue

14

of ruling on two substantive motions to dismiss. Accordingly, judicial efficiency is served by

15

transfer.1

16

Further, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that any efficiency gains would

17

be outweighed by the “added costs and burdens” of having this action litigated in the Central District

18

of California. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that questions regarding the respective convenience

19

of the two courts is normally an argument which “‘should be addressed to the court in the first-filed

20

action.’” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting

21

Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 96 (9th Cir. 1982)); see also Wallerstein v.

22

Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., — F. Supp. 2d — , 2013 WL 5271291, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2013)

23

(“The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that relaxing the first-to-file rule on the basis of convenience is a

24
1

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff downplays this efficiency gain by arguing that Missaghi relies on “different
theories and arguments.” (Dkt. No. 25, at 4). First, this Court notes that this argument is in tension
with Plaintiff’s earlier representation of the Missaghi’s Second Amended Complaint contained a
RICO claim “whose allegations had been quite literally ‘copied and pasted’ from Hilton’s Class
Action Complaint.” (Dkt. No. 14, at 5). Second, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s assessment of
the Missaghi arguments. While it is true that the Missaghi plaintiffs raised some distinct arguments,
they also raised misrepresentation arguments materially similar to those raised by Plaintiff in the
instant action.

2

1

determination best left to the court in the first-filed action.”). As a result, Plaintiff’s convenience

2

argument is properly directed to the Missaghi court.

3
4
5

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that this action should be transferred to the Central
District of California based on the first-to-file rule.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: October 15, 2013
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3