One Beacon America Insurance Company v. Trackwell et al

Filing 34

OPINION AND ORDER. OneBeacon's Motion for Consolidation of Missouri Lawsuit with this Lawsuit in Oregon 18 is denied with leave to renew if the Missouri case is transferred here. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 07/24/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T DISTRICT OF OREGON ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) J U D I T H a n d L L O Y D T R A C K WELL, ) ) Defendants. ) )

C i v i l Case No. 0 9 - 3 6 1 - K I OPINION A N D O R D E R

J o h n A. B e n n e t t Bullivant H o u s e r B a i l e y P C 300 P i o n e e r T o w e r 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, O r e g o n 9 7 2 0 4 - 2 0 8 9 A t t o r n e y for P l a i n t i f f John Folawn Folawn Alterman & Richardson LLP 522 S W F i f t h A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 1 0 0 Portland, O r e g o n 9 7 2 0 4 - 2 1 3 8

Page 1 - O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

Craig R. Heidemann Douglas, H a u n & H e i d m a n n PC P. O. B o x 117 B o l i v a r , M i s s o u r i 65613 A t t o r n e y s for D e f e n d a n t s

KING, Judge: This is an insurance coverage dispute over a claim for theft o f cattle from a ranch in I m n a h a , Oregon. O n e B e a c o n I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y ( " O n e B e a c o n " ) f i l e d t h e C o m p l a i n t i n t h i s court o n April 13, 2009 but h a d the name o f the insurance company wrong. O n April 17, the T r a c k w e l l s s u e d O n e B e a c o n i n s t a t e c o u r t i n M i s s o u r i o v e r t h e s a m e i s s u e . O n A p r i l 20, OneBeacon filed the Amended Complaint here to correct its name. O n M a y 13, the Missouri a c t i o n w a s r e m o v e d t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t for t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f Missouri. On June 17, counsel in Missouri filed a motion to transfer that case here. That motion is pending. Before the court is OneBeacon's Motion for Consolidation o f Missouri Lawsuit with this L a w s u i t i n O r e g o n ( # 1 8 ) . DISCUSSION O n e B e a c o n t a l k s a b o u t t h e f i r s t - t o - f i l e r u l e i n s u p p o r t o f i t s r e q u e s t t h a t I o r d e r the M i s s o u r i c o u r t t o t r a n s f e r i t s c a s e here. "There is a generally recognized doctrine o f federal comity w h i c h permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over a n action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district." Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982); Cadle Co. v. Whataburger o f Alice, Inc., 174 F .3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999) ("Under the first-to-file rule, w h e n related cases are pending before two federal courts, the Page 2 - OPINION AND O R D E R

court i n which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it i f the issues raised by the cases substantially overlap."). OneBeacon correctly notes that the Fifth Circuit requires the court in which the fIrst case is filed to decide i f the second court should transfer its case: H o w e v e r , " [ t ] h e F i f t h C i r c u i t adheres t o t h e general r u l e , t h a t t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h an action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed c a s e s i n v o l v i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r i s s u e s s h o u l d p r o c e e d . " S a v e P o w e r Limited, 121 F . 3 d 9 4 7 , 9 4 8 , citing West G u l f Maritime Association v. !LA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 728 (5th Cir.1985); Mann Mfg., 4 3 9 F . 2 d at 408 (5th Cir.1971). Therefore, the "first to file rule" not only determines which court may d e c i d e t h e m e r i t s o f s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r cases, b u t also e s t a b l i s h e s w h i c h c o u r t may decide whether the second suit filed must be dismissed, stayed o r transferred a n d c o n s o l i d a t e d . T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n M a n n M f g . , 4 3 9 F . 2 d a t 4 0 8 , that: o n c e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f substantial o v e r l a p [ o f issues] between the two suits had been demonstrated, it was no l o n g e r up to the court in Texas to resolve the question o f whether b o t h should p r o c e e d . B y v i r t u e o f its p r i o r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c o m m o n s u b j e c t m a t t e r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r there a c t u a l l y w a s substantial overlap requiring consolidation o f the t w o suits i n [ O k l a h o m a ] b e l o n g e d t o the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n [Oklahoma]. T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t substantial overlap e x i s t s b e t w e e n the T e x a s a n d Oklahoma actions in the instant case. P & P ' s motion to vacate i n Oklahoma, Sutter's motion to confirm in Texas and P & P ' s motion to vacate i n Texas all p r e s e n t i d e n t i c a l i s s u e s . U n d e r these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e T e x a s d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused its discretion. Therefore, we reverse and remand this matter t o the United States District Court for the Northern District o f Texas, so that it may transfer the matter to the U n i t e d States District Court for the Western District o f Oklahoma for resolution o f whether the Texas action should be allowed to proceed independently o r should be consolidated in Oklahoma. Sutter Com. v. P & P Industries, Inc., 125 F.3d 9 1 4 , 9 2 0 (5th Cir. 1997).

Page 3 - O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

This does n o t appear to be the rule in the Ninth Circuit. In the N i n t h Circuit cases cited by OneBeacon, the second court decided whether or not to dismiss o r transfer its case. See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991); Pacesetter, 678 F.2d 93. Without N i n t h Circuit authority, I am unwilling to tell another federal judge that he or she must transfer a case to this court. Accordingly, I deny the motion t o consolidate. I t is premature.
CONCLUSION

O n e B e a c o n ' s M o t i o n for C o n s o l i d a t i o n o f M i s s o u r i L a w s u i t w i t h this L a w s u i t i n O r e g o n
(# 18) is denied with leave to r e n e w i f the Missouri case is transferred here.

I T IS SO ORDERED. D a t e d this

.;z

t ~~

,-day o f July, 2009.

M. King U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t J u d g e

&;;/l~tk~

Page 4 - O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R