GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. et al v. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al
Filing
24
ORDER granting 7 Motion to transfer case. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/14/2015. (thb)
IN THE
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF
COURT
FOR THE
GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
GEORGIACARRY.ORG,
INC.,
and
BRIAN BARRS,
*
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
vs.
*
CV 114-178
*
U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
and THOMAS J. TICKNER, in
his official capacity as
Commander, Savannah District
*
*
*
*
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, *
*
Defendants.
*
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to transfer case.
(Doc. no. 7.) Plaintiffs oppose transfer. (Doc. no. 20.) For
the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
I.
On September 4,
BACKGROUND
2014,
Plaintiffs filed a complaint
seeking the Court's declaration that 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 (the
"Firearms Regulation"), a regulation restricting gun use on
Defendant
United
States
Army
Corps
of
Engineers'
("U.S.A.C.E.") property, violates the Second Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary
and permanent injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the
Firearms Regulation against members of GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc.
On
November
7,
2014,
Defendants
filed
a
motion
to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern
District")
District
of
Georgia,
Rome
Division
("Northern
where a virtually identical lawsuit was filed on
June 12, 2014 and is still pending. See GeorgiaCarrv.Org. Inc.
v. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2014 WL 4059375
(N.D.
Ga.
Aug.
18,
2014) (denying
injunction) .
In
the
alternative, Defendants request this Court transfer venue to
the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Doc. no.
7.)
In the action recently commenced in the Northern District
("GeorgiaCarry I"), GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. and a local member
of that organization, David James,
local U.S.A.C.E.
commander,
sued U.S.A.C.E. and the
Jon J. Chytka,
challenging the
Firearms Regulation as applied at U.S.A.C.E.-managed Lake
Allatoona near Atlanta, Georgia. In the case filed in this
Court ("GeorgiaCarry II"), GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. and a local
member of that organization, Brian Barrs, sued U.S.A.C.E. and
the local U.S.A.C.E. commander, Thomas J. Tickner, challenging
the Firearms Regulation as applied at U.S.A.C.E.-managed J.
Strom Thurmond Lake near Augusta, Georgia.
In GeorgiaCarry I, on August 18, 2014, the court denied
the plaintiffs' request for an injunction in part because the
plaintiffs
were
GeorgiaCarry.Org,
little doubt that
unlikely
Inc.,
to
succeed
2014 WL 4059375,
[U.S.A.C.E.]
on
the
*11.
merits.
(w[T]here is
could exclude civilians from
its property altogether" and therefore "it would be an awkward
holding to find that ... if it chooses to allow them access,
it must also allow them to carry firearms."). On August 27,
2014,
at
the
plaintiffs'
request,
the
court
stayed
all
proceedings in that case pending the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals' adjudication of the plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal
of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
(Defs.' Mot.
to Transfer at 2.) One week later, GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. and
Brian Barrs filed GeorgiaCarry II in this Court.
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that this Court should transfer this
case
to
the
Northern
District
under
the
first-filed
rule
because substantially similar litigation was first filed and
is pending there. Plaintiffs contend that this Court lacks
jurisdiction to transfer the case and that the Northern
District
is
an
provides
that
inconvenient
when parties
forum.
have
The
first-filed
rule
instituted competing or
parallel litigation in separate courts, the court initially
seized of the controversy should hear the case. Collegiate
Licensing Co.
v. Am. Cas. Co.,
713 F.3d 71,
78
(11th Cir.
2013)("[W]here two actions involving overlapping issues and
parties are pending in two federal courts,
there is a strong
presumption across the federal circuits that favors the forum
of
the
first-filed
suit under
the
first-filed rule.").
The
first-filed rule is grounded in principles of comity and sound
judicial administration. Strother v. Hvlas Yachts, Inc.. 2012
WL
4531357,
*1
(S.D.
Fla.
Oct.
1,
2012)("The
manifestly is to avoid the waste of duplication,
concern
to avoid
rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts,
and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a
uniform result."). In determining whether the rule applies,
courts look to the following factors: (1)
the chronology of
the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3)
the similarity of the issues. Rudolph & Me, Inc. v. Ornament
Cent. , LLC, 2011 WL 3919711, *2 (M.D. Fla Sept. 7, 2011). When
the
rule
applies,
a
district court may
elect
to
stay,
transfer, or dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, and in
applying the rule, judges are afforded an ample degree of
discretion.
Strother,
2012
WL
4531357,
*1.
In
order
to
overcome the presumption favoring the forum of the first-filed
suit, the objecting party must "carry the burden of proving
compelling circumstances"
to warrant an exception to the
first-filed rule. Manuel v. Converavs Corp.,
1135 (11th Cir.
2005) .
430 F.3d 1132,
Here, it is undisputed that GeorgiaCarry I was filed in
the Northern District three months before GeorgiaCarry II was
filed in this Court.
similar
but
not
As for the parties involved,
identical.
GeorgiaCarry.Org,
they are
Inc.
is
a
plaintiff in each case and U.S.A.C.E. is a defendant in each
case,
but the organization's local member and U.S.A.C.E.'s
local commander are different. However,
the parties need not
be identical for a court to transfer a case under the first-
filed rule if the two cases substantially overlap. See e.g.,
Strother,
2012
WL
4531357,
*2
(first-filed
overlapping issues and parties but
the
rule
requires
cases need not
be
identical to be duplicative); Rudolph & Me, Inc. v. Ornament
Cent.,
LLC,
2011
WL
3919711,
*2
(M.D.
Fla
Sept.
7,
2011) (disparity between the parties does not render the firstfiled rule inapplicable); Global Innovation Tech. Holdings v.
Acer
Am.
Corp.,
2009)("[A]1though
634
the
F.
Supp.
1346,
two
cases
include
1349
(S.D.
different
Fla
party
defendants, a strong commonality unites them."). With regard
to substantive similarities, the complaint in GeorgiaCarry I
is almost a carbon copy of the complaint in GeorgiaCarry II.
Each
action presents a Second Amendment
challenge
Firearms Regulation as applied at U.S.A.C.E.-managed,
to the
large
recreational areas in the state of Georgia. The issues clearly
overlap. All three factors - chronology of the two actions,
similarity of the parties,
and similarity of the
issues
-
weigh in favor of transfer.
Plaintiffs argue that this Court has no jurisdiction to
transfer the case because, pursuant to the first-filed rule,
it
is
the
court
initially
seized of
the
matter
that
empowered to determine the disposition of the cases.
court
determines
that
a
plaintiff's
two
lawsuits
is
If a
involve
substantial overlap and the plaintiff first filed one of the
actions in another district court, the proper course of action
is for the court to transfer the case to the first-filed court
to determine
which case
should,
in the
interests
of
sound
judicial administration and judicial economy, proceed.
e.g.,
Jacobs v.
United States,
2014 WL 103840,
*2
(N.D.
See
Fla.
Jan. 10, 2014) (transferring a case to a forum under the first-
filed rule where plaintiff had filed a similar action three
months earlier involving the same set of facts and claims of
medical negligence against the same defendants); Laskaris v.
Fifth Third Bank,
962
F.
Supp.
2d
1297,
1299
(S.D.
Fla.
2013)(transferring a case to another district court under the
first-filed rule where plaintiff had filed a nearly identical
suit against the same bank six months earlier alleging breach
of
contract) ; Travel Spike v.
Travel Ad Network,
2012
WL
887591, *2 (N.D. Ga. March 14, 2012) (transferring a case to a
district
under the
first-filed rule where a
substantially
overlapping case
involving the
same parties
was pending);
Marietta Drapery & Window Coverings Co.. Inc. v. The N. River
Ins.
Co. ,
486
F.
Supp.
2d
1366,
1370
(N.D.
Ga.
2007) (transferring a case to a forum where a similar case was
pending in order for the first-filed court to determine which
of the
two cases should proceed or whether they should be
consolidated).
There
is no
case
law supporting Plaintiffs
position that this Court has no power to transfer GeorgiaCarry
II
to
the
Northern
District
in
order
for
that
court
to
determine whether Georgia Carry II should be dismissed, stayed
or
consolidated
with GeorgiaCarry I.
Such
a
transfer
is
appropriate here.
Plaintiffs also argue that transfer from the Southern
District to the Northern District would be inconvenient. Brian
Barrs lives in the Southern District and frequently recreates
at J. Strom Thurmond Lake located in the Southern District.
However,
GeorgiaCarry.Org,
Inc.
is headquartered
in the
Northern District and Plaintiffs' counsel has an office in the
Northern District. The Court finds that Plaintiffs would not
be unduly burdened if this case is transferred to the forum
where
GeorgiaCarry.Org,
Inc.
recently chose
to
commence
similar litigation.
In sum,
Plaintiffs fail to articulate any compelling
circumstances that would justify an exception to the well-
established first-filed rule.
III.
For
the
Defendants'
is
directed
District
reasons
See Manuel,
CONCLUSION
stated
herein,
motion to transfer case.
to
Court
TRANSFER
for
430 F.3d at 1136.
this
case
the
(Doc.
to
no.
the
the Northern District
of
Court
7.)
GRANTS
The Clerk
United
States
Georgia,
Rome
Division.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
January,
Ir** day of
2015.
fdal Hall
Unitedf States District Judge
srn District of Georgia
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?