Bedrock Logistics LLC v. Braintree Laboratories Inc DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE - ALL ENTRIES ARE TO BE MADE IN THE LEAD CASE
1:17-cv-10756
D. Mass.Apr 28, 2017Background
- Braintree Laboratories (Massachusetts) sent Bedrock Logistics (Texas) a demand letter (Sept 15, 2016) alleging a kickback scheme and offering settlement with a Sept 26 response deadline.
- Before responding, Bedrock filed suit in Texas state court (Sept 19, 2016) seeking payment of unpaid invoices referencing the same transactions.
- Braintree filed a competing federal suit in the District of Massachusetts (Sept 27, 2016). Braintree later removed the Texas suit to the Northern District of Texas.
- Massachusetts court denied Bedrock’s motion to transfer that action to Texas; Massachusetts case proceeded and included related third-party filings.
- Braintree moved in the Northern District of Texas to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The Texas court found Bedrock’s Texas filing was an anticipatory (forum-shopping) suit, concluded the § 1404(a) private and public interest factors favored Massachusetts, and granted transfer (denying application of the first-to-file rule).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to District of Massachusetts is warranted | Transfer is proper because Massachusetts is clearly more convenient given location of key witnesses, documents, and local interest | Venue in Northern District of Texas is proper; plaintiff’s choice of forum should be respected and Bedrock raced to court first | Transfer granted: majority of private and public interest factors favor Massachusetts; transferee is clearly more convenient |
| Weight of witness convenience/compulsory process in venue analysis | Key non-party witnesses (Massachusetts residents) likely unavailable without subpoena; favors Massachusetts | Texas-based witnesses would be inconvenienced; Bedrock did not identify key Texas non-party witnesses | Witness availability strongly favors transfer to Massachusetts (greatest weight given to non-party witness convenience) |
| Effect of parallel Massachusetts action and first-to-file rule | First-to-file should not block transfer because Bedrock’s Texas suit was anticipatory forum-shopping | Bedrock argued its earlier state-court filing precludes transfer under first-to-file principles | First-to-file rule declined: Bedrock’s pre-deadline Texas filing was anticipatory; compelling circumstances justified not giving deference to first filing |
| Whether personal jurisdiction issues must be decided before venue | Braintree urged venue resolution to avoid constitutional jurisdiction questions | Bedrock sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction | Court prudentially resolved venue first because transfer mooted personal jurisdiction concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (transferee must be clearly more convenient; overview of § 1404(a) test)
- In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.) (private and public interest factors for venue transfer)
- Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir.) (first-to-file rule when related cases overlap)
- Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir.) (purpose of first-to-file rule to avoid duplicative litigation)
- Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403 (5th Cir.) (compelling circumstances may justify declining the first-to-file rule)
- Leroy v. Great Western United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1979) (venue and personal jurisdiction are not strictly preliminary; court may choose order of resolution)