GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc. et al
Filing
30
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/14/2016. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GOPRO HONG KONG LTD.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No.16-cv-05113-JD
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
2B TRADING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
On September 6, 2016, plaintiff GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. (“GoPro”) filed a petition to
14
enforce a foreign arbitration judgment against defendants 2B Trading, Inc. and United World
15
Brands. Dkt. No. 1. On September 30, 2016, 2B Trading filed a motion to dismiss the petition
16
based on the first-to-file rule of federal comity. Dkt. Nos. 12, 13. 2B Trading asserts that because
17
it filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award in Miami-Dade County, Florida before GoPro
18
filed its petition, the Court should dismiss the duplicative action. Id. at 6-8. The motion is denied.
19
BACKGROUND
20
GoPro is a Hong Kong organization that distributes action sports cameras and accessories.
21
Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1. 2B Trading is a Florida corporation that distributes action sports equipment and
22
United World Brands is a Colombian corporation that imports and markets extreme sports
23
products; they are under common management. Id. ¶¶ 2-4. In 2012, the parties entered into a
24
two-year international distribution agreement in which defendants would distribute GoPro
25
products in Colombia. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. In 2013, GoPro terminated the agreement when it found out
26
that defendants were allegedly selling their products on the “gray” market. Dkt. No. 18 at 1-3. In
27
2014, 2B Trading brought a breach of contract action against GoPro in Florida state court in
28
1
response, but it was dismissed with prejudice in light of the agreement’s arbitration clause. Id. at
2
1-2.
3
Following the dismissal, 2B Trading submitted a request for arbitration to the International
4
Court of Arbitration (“ICC”) on January 12, 2015. Id. at 2. GoPro sought joinder of United
5
World Brands, which was not opposed. Id. The arbitration proceeded according to ICC rules and
6
culminated with a four-day hearing in San Francisco in March 2016. Id. The arbitrator found in
7
favor of GoPro, awarding $745,172.74 plus fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. Id. at 3. After
8
asking for the status of compliance with this award, counsel for defendants told GoPro on June 10,
9
2016 that they are “judgment proof. No payment will be made.” Id. On September 2, 2016, 2B
Trading e-filed a “Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award” in the closed 2014 action in Miami-Dade
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
state court. Id. at 4. On September 6, 2016, GoPro filed the petition to affirm judgment against
12
defendants in this Court. Dkt. No. 1.
DISCUSSION
13
14
Before getting into the substance of the motion, the Court notes that 2B Trading filed a
15
reply brief 15 days late and after the Court advised the parties that it found the matter appropriate
16
for resolution without oral argument. Dkt. No. 26. That is far too late to file a reply, and 2B
17
Trading offered an insufficient explanation for this untoward delay. The Court on its own
18
discretion declines to consider the reply. See Airbnb, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco,
19
No. 3:16-cv-03615-JD, 2016 WL 6599821, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2016). GoPro’s motion to
20
strike is denied as moot. Dkt. No. 26.
21
2B Trading contends that because the petition to vacate the arbitration award was first filed
22
in Miami-Dade County, Florida state court -- four days before GoPro filed the petition to confirm
23
the arbitration award -- the Court should dismiss the second filed action here. Dkt. No. 13 at 7.
24
This is a misunderstanding of the first-to-file doctrine. Under that rule, a court may dismiss an
25
action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court. See Alltrade, Inc.
26
v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). There is not
27
another federal court at issue here. Rather, between state and federal courts, “the rule is that the
28
pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the
2
1
Federal court having jurisdiction.” Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 817
2
(1976) (internal quotation omitted). Dismissal of a federal action in favor of the state forum is
3
reserved only for “exceptional circumstances” and after carefully weighing complex factors. See
4
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 13-19 (1983).
5
If there is a parallel state action, the court must consider (1) whether the state court first
6
assumed jurisdiction over property; (2) inconvenience of the federal form; (3) the desirability of
7
avoiding piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent
8
forums; (5) whether federal law or state law provides the rule of decision on the merits; (6)
9
whether the state court proceedings are inadequate to protect the federal litigant’s rights;
(7) whether exercising jurisdiction would promote forum shopping. See Holder v. Holder, 305
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
F.3d 854, 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit cautions that a federal action should not be
12
dismissed where there is “substantial doubt” whether the state court action will be an “adequate
13
vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the parties.” Intel Corp. v.
14
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation omitted).
15
As a preliminary matter, it is unclear whether the Florida action is actually “pending.” But
16
because courts must “generally rely on the state of affairs at the time of the Colorado River
17
analysis,” the e-filed state court petition will be considered. R.R. Street & Co. Inc. v. Transport
18
Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 982 (9th Cir. 2011). As plaintiff points out, 2B Trading first filed a
19
petition to vacate the arbitration award in a case that was previously dismissed with prejudice.
20
Dkt. No. 18 at 5, Exh. B. It is unclear if or whether the action will be reopened and whether
21
United World Brands will join, but the Florida state court does have discretion to proceed with the
22
parallel petition. See id.; Dkt. No. 12, Exh. A.
23
The other relevant Colorado River factors cut against dismissal and demonstrate the
24
absence of exceptional circumstances. As a “major consideration,” there is a clear presence of
25
federal-law issues related to foreign arbitration. See Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 25. This Court
26
will not be an inconvenient forum because the parties have already enjoyed a multi-day arbitration
27
in San Francisco and witnesses’ testimony will almost certainly not be required here. There is no
28
risk of piecemeal litigation or risk of inconsistent disposition of property. The state court action
3
1
does not yet include United World Brands as a party, and neither court has addressed the motion
2
to vacate or motion to confirm. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Moore, Inc., 171
3
Fed. Appx. 545, 546 (9th Cir. 2006).
4
Consequently, the motion to dismiss is denied.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: November 14, 2016
7
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?