Fairhaven Health, L.L.C. v. Hilin Life Products, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER granting dft's 9 Motion to transfer venue to District of New Jersey by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
FAIRHAVEN HEALTH, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
HILIN LIFE PRODUCTS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C15-0510RSL
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion and Memorandum to

15

Dismiss or Transfer Venue.” Dkt. # 9. The plaintiff in this action filed suit against a competitor,

16

Hilin Life Products, alleging that defendant engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading

17

advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and 35

18

U.S.C. § 292. Dkt. # 1. Almost a month earlier, defendant had filed a similar lawsuit against

19

plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Hilin Life Prods., Inc.

20

v. Fairhaven Health, LLC, C15-1629MCA-LDW (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2015).

21

Courts “usually avoid duplicative litigation when similar cases are pending in two

22

different federal courts.” R.R. Street & Co., Inc. v. Transport Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 974-75 (9th

23

Cir. 2011). “The first-to-file rule is intended to serve the purpose of promoting efficiency well

24

and should not be disregarded lightly. When applying the first-to-file rule, courts should be

25

driven to maximize economy, consistency, and comity. The first-to-file rule may be applied

26

when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Thus, a court analyzes three factors: chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and
similarity of the issues.” Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2015
WL 3499923, at *2 (9th Cir. June 4, 2015) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations
omitted). The first-to-file rule “is not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but
rather is to be applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial administration.” Decker Coal
Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 1986).
Having reviewed the complaints and the memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court
finds that transfer is appropriate. This action was filed after the District of New Jersey action and
involves the same parties. Although the issues are not identical – each side is accusing the other
of false advertising regarding the competing products – they are substantially similar, which is
all that is required. Kohn Law Group, 2015 WL 3499923, at *3. Forcing two district courts to
understand and evaluate the competing products, the parties’ past interactions, the regulatory
approval process, and the relevant advertising campaigns would be inefficient and poses the risk
of inconsistent factual findings. In addition, principles of comity suggest that this Court step
aside in favor of the District of New Jersey.

16
17
18
19

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to transfer venue is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this matter to the District of New Jersey
as related to Hilin Life Prods., Inc. v. Fairhaven Health, LLC, C15-1629 MCA-LDW.

20
21

Dated this 20th day of July, 2015.

22

A
Robert S. Lasnik

23

United States District Judge

24
25
26
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

-2-