Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. et al v. Transportation Technology Services, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 10 is DENIED. This action is STAYED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on December 20, 2013. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co.,
Ltd., MPS Canada, Inc., Mitsubishi Power
Systems Americas, Inc., and Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 13-3368 (JNE/JJG)
ORDER

v.
Transportation Technology Services, Inc.,
Defendant.

This case arises out of the shipment of a Natural Gas Turbine Cycle Plant, valued at over
$35 million and weighing more than 700,000 pounds, from Japan to Canada by way of
Minnesota. The shipment was to be accomplished in two legs: the first by boat from Japan to
Duluth, Minnesota, and the second by rail from Duluth to Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
According to the Plaintiffs, they contracted with the Defendant to ensure the safe
handling of the cargo on the rail leg of its journey. The Plaintiffs further allege that the
Defendant breached that contract when, in June of 2012, the cargo was significantly damaged
after being “driven into the side of a mountain” near McGregor, Minnesota 1 while in transit on a
BNSF train.

1

McGregor is located in Aitkin County in northeastern Minnesota. According to the United
States Geological Survey, the “gently undulating surface” of this region today belies a
tumultuous natural history. America’s Volcanic Past: Minnesota, http://vulcan.wr.usgs.
gov/LivingWith/VolcanicPast/Places/volcanic_past_ minnesota.html (last visited Dec. 20, 2013).
Over the ages, the towering mountain ranges and active volcanoes that once dominated the
landscape were brought low by the forces of glacial erosion. Id. The only topographical
indication that remains today of the region’s alpine past are the “[h]ills [that] rise just a few
hundred feet above the surrounding countryside.” Id. Indeed, the highest point in Aitkin
1

The Plaintiffs originally filed their lawsuit in the Southern District of New York in June
2013. Complaint (ECF No. 12-2). The Defendant moved to dismiss that action for lack of
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas. Order of
Dismissal at 2 (ECF No. 12-2). The Plaintiffs also filed an “alternative cross-motion” to transfer
the case to this District. Id. Before a ruling, the Plaintiffs requested an order of voluntary
dismissal, which the court granted on December 9, 2013 while “tak[ing] no position on what is
the appropriate venue for this case.” Id. at 3.
Once the Southern District of New York issued the order of dismissal, the Defendant
promptly – within a matter of minutes, according to the Plaintiffs – filed a declaratory judgment
action in the Northern District of Texas. Complaint (ECF No. 12-5). Two hours after that filing,
the Plaintiffs filed this action.
On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs moved this Court to enjoin the Defendant from
proceeding with its declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of Texas. Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10). The Plaintiffs concede that that case was filed before this
one, and they acknowledge “[t]he well-established rule . . . that in cases of concurrent
jurisdiction, ‘the first court in which jurisdiction attaches has priority to consider the case.’” U.S.
Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 920 F.2d 487, 488 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting
Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc., 765 F.2d 119, 121 (8th Cir. 1985)). Nevertheless,
the Plaintiffs urge the Court to find the first-filed rule inapplicable for any number of reasons,
including the Defendant’s alleged forum-shopping.

County, Quadna Mountain, rises a modest 400 feet or so above the surrounding low-relief plain.
See History of Aitkin County, http://www.co.aitkin.mn.us/Tourism/history-info.html (last visited
Dec. 20, 2013).
2

The merits of the Plaintiffs’ argument aside, the Court is not persuaded that the injunction
the Plaintiffs seek would be appropriate in these circumstances. Judicial handling of cases of
concurrent jurisdiction is “a matter of federal comity.” Keymer v. Mgmt. Recruiters Int’l, Inc.,
169 F.3d 501, 503 n.2 (8th Cir. 1999). As such, it is the prerogative of the court hearing the firstfiled case to determine the applicability of the first-filed rule. See, e.g., Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v.
Supreme Int’l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) (court hearing second-filed action stayed
that case pending decision on first-filed rule by the court hearing the first-filed action).
The Court therefore declines to address the Plaintiffs’ argument. If the Northern District
of Texas concludes that the first-filed rule does not apply or that venue better lies here, then this
action will be allowed to proceed. In the meantime, the Court stays this action and denies the
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice.

Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 10] is DENIED.

2.

This action is STAYED.

Dated: December 20, 2013
s/Joan N. Ericksen
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen
United States District Judge

3