Retail Management Solutions, L.L.C. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

Filing 32

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay; case stayed pending outcome of Minnesota action; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) (Main Document 32 replaced on 9/10/2014, wrong version originally docketed) (DN). Modified on 9/10/2014 (DN).

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 RETAIL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. CASE NO. C13-5246 RBL ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN FAVOR OF FIRST-FILED ACTION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO STAY HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 THIS MATTER comes before the court on Defendant Hartford’s motion to dismiss in favor of their first-filed action. Hartford is the plaintiff in a similar action filed in United States 19 District Court for the District of Minnesota, filed March 29, 2013. Three days later, Plaintiff 20 (and defendant in the other case) Retail Management Solutions, L.L.C. filed this action. 21 22 Hartford argues that because the Minnesota action was filed first, this action should be 23 dismissed in accordance with the “first-to-file” rule. The first-to-file rule permits a district court 24 to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same issues and parties has 25 already been filed in a court with concurrent jurisdiction. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 26 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Church of Scientology of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of the 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN FAVOR OF FIRST-FILED ACTION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO STAY - 1 1 Army, 611 F.2d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 1979); Great N. Ry. Co. v. Nat’l R.R. Adjustment Bd., 422 2 F.2d 1187, 1193 (7th Cir. 1970)). 3 There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. A court will not apply the first-to-file 4 rule when there is evidence of bad-faith, anticipatory suit, or forum shopping. Z-Line Designs, 5 6 Inc. v. Bell’O Int’l, L.L.C., 218 F.R.D. 663, 665 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Further, a court may refuse to 7 apply the first-to-file rule if the balance of convenience weighs in favor of the latter-filed action. 8 Id. 9 10 In this case, two or more exceptions to the first-to-file rule potentially apply. Nevertheless, judicial discretion cautions against accepting the second-filed action at this time. 11 See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The most basic 12 aspect of the first-to-file rule is that it is discretionary.”). Rather, given the uncertain status of the 13 14 Minnesota action, and the potential for statute of limitations problems to arise, the prudent course 15 of action is to stay this proceeding pending the outcome of the Minnesota action. See, e.g., 16 Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 629 (finding that in cases where the first-filed action “presents a likelihood 17 of dismissal,” the second-filed action should be stayed, not dismissed). 18 Accordingly, Hartford’s motion to dismiss in favor of the first-filed action is DENIED, 19 but their alternative motion to stay these proceedings, pending the outcome pending Motions in 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the Minnesota action, is GRANTED. Dated this 10th day of September, 2014. A RONALD B. LEIGHTON (as authorized/dn) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN FAVOR OF FIRST-FILED ACTION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO STAY - 2

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?