United States of America v. Safety National Casualty Corporation et al
Filing
31
OPINION, MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' joint motion to dismiss or transfer venue [ECF No. 5 ] is GRANTED in that this action shall be TRANSFERRED to the Honorable Keith P. Ellison in the United States District Cou rt for the Southern District of Texas. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants joint motion to dismiss is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 4 ] is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 3/30/12. (email to K. Moore regarding electronic transfer of case) (TRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:10CV1782 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a joint motion of defendants Safety National
Casualty Corporation (“Safety National”) and AAA Bonding Agency, Inc. (“AAA
Bonding”) to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the first-filed rule and 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a)(change of venue). The United States of America, on behalf of the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), opposes both the dismissal and the
transfer. For the reasons stated below, the Court will transfer this action to the
Southern District of Texas.
This case involves three immigration bonds issued by defendants Safety
National and AAA Bonding to DHS. The Court notes that there is an action now
pending in the Southern District of Texas that relates to more than 1000 immigration
bonds issued by these same defendants to DHS over a period of four years and raises
substantially identical issues to those DHS seeks to assert in the case at bar.1 See
Safety National Casualty Corporation and AAA Bonding Agency, Inc. v. United
States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 4:05-CV-2159 (S.D. Tx.). At
issue is whether the Court should transfer this case to the Southern District of Texas
under the first-filed rule and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The first-filed rule holds that the court in which an action is first filed is
generally the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently-filed cases
involving substantially similar issues should proceed. West Gulf Maritime Ass’n v.
ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 728-30 (5th Cir. 1985). This rule is wellestablished in the Eighth Circuit. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co., 920 F.2d 487, 488 (8th Cir. 1990). The first-filed rule is a discretionary doctrine,
resting on principles of comity and sound judicial administration, that permits a
federal district court to accept or decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint
involving substantially overlapping parties and substantive issues is pending in
another federal court. Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603
(5th Cir. 1999); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 989 F.2d 1002,
1006 (8th Cir. 1993).
With regard to the change of venue statute, § 1404(a) states:
1
The overlapping issues concern whether certain immigration bonds issued by Safety
National and AAA Bonding have been properly declared to be breached by DHS.
2
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been
brought or to any district or division to which all parties
have consented.
The purpose of § 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money
and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience
and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)(citation omitted).
Moreover, “[t]he efficient use of judicial resources and the benefit all parties will
receive from preventing unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expense weigh
heavily in favor of transfer.” May Dept. Stores Co. v. Wilansky, 900 F. Supp. 1154,
1166 (E.D. Mo. 1995).
Having carefully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of all parties,
the Court concludes that the instant action should be transferred to the Southern
District of Texas pursuant to both the first-filed rule and § 1404(a). Specifically, the
Court finds that this case could have initially been brought in the Southern District of
Texas.2 Moreover, the pending Southern District of Texas lawsuit and the instant
action involve overlapping issues and parties. The Court further finds that principles
of comity, court efficiency, and wise administration, as well as the avoidance of
2
AAA Bonding is located in Houston, within the Southern District of Texas. AAA
Bonding issued the immigration bonds from its Houston office, and DHS sent to AAA Bonding
in Houston the written notices regarding the immigration bonds. Moreover, the parties have been
litigating more than 1000 disputed bonds in the Southern District of Texas for the past five years.
3
inconsistent results and forum shopping will all be served by transferring this action
to the Southern District of Texas.
Additionally, the Court will deny plaintiff’s pending motion for summary
judgment [ECF No. 4], because the filing of this motion at the outset of the case was
premature. The denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will be without
prejudice to refiling with the Honorable Keith P. Ellison, upon transfer to the
Southern District of Texas and subject to his case management orders.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ joint motion to dismiss or
transfer venue [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED in that this action shall be
TRANSFERRED to the Honorable Keith P. Ellison in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ joint motion to dismiss is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
[ECF No. 4] is DENIED, without prejudice.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2012.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?