New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

First-Filed Rule — Exceptions — Forum-Shopping Not Necessarily Abusive

Download PDF

From Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Aker Kvaerner/IHI, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60019 (S.D. Tex. June 16, 2010):

A. The First-to-File Rule

The first-to-file rule is based on "principles of comity and sound judicial administration." Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp. , 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997). It "requires federal district courts -- courts of coordinate jurisdiction and equal rank -- to exercise care to avoid interference with each other's affairs." West Gulf Maritime Ass'n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 1985).

"Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases substantially overlap." Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Save Power, 121 F.3d at 950; West Gulf Maritime, 751 F.2d at 728). The rule vests in the court in which the first of the two related actions was filed the responsibility of "determin[ing] whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed." Sutter Corp. v. P & P Indus., Inc., 125 F.3d 914, 920 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the second-filed court should usually stay, dismiss, or transfer the action over which it is presiding in deference to the first-filed court. See West Gulf Maritime, 751 F.2d at 729 & n. 1, 730. This enables the court in which the first related action was filed to "decide whether the second suit filed must be dismissed, stayed or transferred and consolidated." Sutter Corp., 125 F.3d at 920. "In the absence of compelling circumstances, the Court initially seized of a controversy should be the one to decide whether it will try the case." Mann Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hortex, Inc. , 439 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1971). In determining which action was filed first, the court considers a removed case to have been filed on the date it was filed in state court, rather than on the date of removal. See Igloo Products Corp. v. The Mounties, Inc., 735 F.Supp. 214, 217 (S.D. Tex. 1990). ***

The action currently pending between the parties in the Western District of Louisiana was filed in Louisiana state court on February 1, 2010. This action was filed on February 4, 2010. The action pending in Louisiana is therefore the first-filed action. The two actions also deal with substantially similar issues. While the action in Louisiana is a suit for breach of contract and the action in this court seeks to compel arbitration, both actions are essentially concerned with the question of what losses the Insurers are obligated to cover under the Policies. The two actions concern the same parties and the same facts. The Insurers pled the same grounds for federal jurisdiction in both actions, and AK/IHI has challenged federal jurisdiction in both actions on the same grounds. There is no reason why the Insurers could not have filed its motions to compel arbitration and seeking declaratory judgments in the action currently pending in Louisiana. Absent compelling circumstances, see Mann Manufacturing, 439 F.2d at 407, the court is obligated under the first-to-file rule to dismiss this action or transfer it to the Western District of Louisiana.

The Insurers argue that the first-to-file rule should not apply in this action because compelling circumstances require an exception. First, the Insurers argue that the first-to-file rule should not apply because the Louisiana action was an anticipatory lawsuit filed by AK/IHI for purposes of forum shopping. The court does not agree. Alleging that another party engaged in "forum shopping" does not establish that the opposing party's choice of forum was abusive. All plaintiffs must choose a forum in which to file their suit, and it is well settled that a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to "appropriate deference." See In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008).

The cases cited by the Insurers for the principle that courts will disregard the first-to-file rule to prevent forum-shopping — e.g., British Borneo Exploration, Inc. v. Enserch Exploration, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 999 (E.D. La. 1998), and 909 Corp. v. Village of Bolingbrook Police Pension Fund, 741 F.Supp. 1290 (S.D. Tex. 1990) — involved situations in which parties sought to deprive an aggrieved party of its choice of forum by filing anticipatory declaratory judgment actions. These cases do not support disregarding the first-to-file rule in this action. AK/IHI is the party bringing the grievance and, thus, should be entitled to the plaintiff's traditional choice of forum. Moreover, AK/IHI seeks to recover on the merits of its claims, and is not merely seeking a declaratory judgment. And finally, Cameron Parish, Louisiana, is a logical forum in which to settle the dispute. This action involves damage to property in Cameron Parish. Because all the parties to this action signed insurance policies covering property in Cameron Parish, it is the one location to which all parties to the action have a connection. It is not abusive "forum shopping" to file suit in the venue with the most factual connections to the dispute.

The Insurers also argue that the court should disregard the first-to-file rule because "the balance of convenience favors the later filed action." Courts have recognized an exception to the first-filed rule where the balance of convenience favors the second-filed action. See Employers Ins. of Wasau v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., 522 F.3d 271, 275 (2d Cir. 2008); Igloo Products, 735 F.Supp. at 218. The Insurers, however, have not established that the Southern District of Texas is a more convenient location than the Western District of Louisiana for addressing the dispute. ***This court sees no reason to disregard the first-to-file rule on the basis of the parties' convenience.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice