AFS Technologies, Inc. v. Harrison et al

Filing 18

ORDER (see attached) - The parties to the captioned action in this Court are also the parties in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, No. 1:14-cv-94, before District Judge Gord on J. Quist. In a thoughtful and comprehensive opinion filed on April 4, 2014, familiarity with which is assumed, Judge Quist denied ASF Technologies' motion to transfer the Michigan action to this District. This Court agrees entirely with Judg e Quist's conclusions and the reasoning by which he arrives at them. The only way the salutary purposes Judge Quist describes can be achieved is for the action presently pending in this District to be transferred to the Western District of Mich igan, there to be combined with No. 1:14-cv-94 in that Court. In consequence, the Clerk of this Court is directed to transfer this case to the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. This Order is made sua sponte, in application of the fir st-to-file rule and in recognition of the section 1404(a) factors, an aspect of the litigation where this Court's evaluation is the same as that expressed by Judge Quist. After transfer as been completed, the Clerk of this Court is further directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 4/17/14.(Hornstein, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
AFS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:14-cv-00134 (CSH)

ROBERT HARRISON and
HENRY VANDER WAAL,
Defendants.

ORDER
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
The parties to the captioned action in this Court are also the parties in an action pending
in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, No.
1:14-cv-94, before District Judge Gordon J. Quist. In a thoughtful and comprehensive opinion
filed on April 4, 2014, familiarity with which is assumed, Judge Quist denied ASF Technologies'
motion to transfer the Michigan action to this District. He applied the first-to-file rule to the
circumstances of the litigation, which militated in favor of retaining in Michigan the action
commenced there by Vander Waal and Harrison. Judge Quist also carefully reviewed the factors
relevant to a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a), and concluded that "they weigh
against transferring the Harrison breach of contract and related claims to the District of
Connecticut." April 4, 2014 Opinion [Doc. 12 in Michigan action] at 16.
During the course of his opinion, Judge Quist accurately observed that "both cases will
almost certainly involve issues regarding the nature of AFS's business, its relationship with its
1

customers, and whether Vander Waal is a competitor of AFS." Id. at 7. In those circumstances,
application of the first-to-file rule "will allow all issues to be tried in one action without the risk
of conflicting judgments and will benefit all parties by eliminating duplicative litigation efforts
and minimizing expenses." Id. at 8. To that conclusion, Judge Quist added his section 1404(a)
analysis, with its corollary conclusion that "Combining the [two] cases before one court who can
supervise discovery, determine motions and conduct a trial on the merits if necessary promotes
judicial economy and efficiency." Id. at 16 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
I agree entirely with Judge Quist's conclusions and the reasoning by which he arrives at
them. The only way the salutary purposes he describes can be achieved is for the action presently
pending in this District to be transferred to the Western District of Michigan, there to be
combined with No. 1:14-cv-94 in that Court. In consequence, the Clerk of this Court is directed
to transfer this case to the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. I make that Order
sua sponte, in application of the first-to-file rule and in recognition of the section 1404(a) factors,
an aspect of the litigation where my evaluation is the same as that expressed by Judge Quist.
After transfer as been completed, the Clerk of this Court is further directed to close the
file.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
April 17, 2014

/s/ Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

2