Coleman v. Verde Energy USA, Inc.
3:17-cv-00062
S.D. Ill.Nov 2, 2017Background
- Coleman filed a putative class action under the TCPA alleging Verde Energy USA Illinois, LLC placed automated calls to Illinois cell numbers without consent.
- Plaintiff amended to name the Illinois affiliate after discovering it was the responsible caller.
- Verde moved to dismiss, or alternatively stay or transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, invoking the “first-to-file” rule and pointing to a similar earlier case, Richardson v. Verde Energy USA, Inc.
- Richardson was filed in E.D. Pa. against a related corporate defendant and includes an Illinois class member; Verde argued the class and claims substantially overlap.
- Coleman opposed, arguing the Seventh Circuit does not rigidly apply a first-to-file rule, transfer to E.D. Pa. is not clearly more convenient, and a stay would prejudice class members.
- The district court denied dismissal, transfer, and stay, permitting Coleman’s suit to proceed despite Richardson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of "first-to-file" doctrine | Seventh Circuit does not require dismissal of later-filed similar suits; different plaintiffs/defendants justify separate actions | Richardson substantially overlaps; allowing Coleman to proceed is circumvention of first-to-file | First-to-file inapplicable here because plaintiffs and defendants differ; court declined to dismiss |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 | Southern District of Illinois is proper and convenient (plaintiff is Illinois resident; alleged conduct occurred in Illinois) | E.D. Pa. is appropriate for consolidation with Richardson | Defendant failed to show E.D. Pa. is clearly more convenient; transfer denied |
| Motion to stay pending resolution of Richardson | Stay would be prejudicial and tactical disadvantage to class action development; no clear hardship to defendant | A stay would promote judicial economy by consolidating overlapping litigation | Stay denied: defendant failed to show clear hardship; stay would hinder locating class members and not simplify issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221 (7th Cir. 1993) (district courts may dismiss duplicative federal suits for wise judicial administration)
- Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 1995) (Seventh Circuit does not rigidly apply a first-to-file rule)
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (no inflexible rule that prior filing controls)
- McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 694 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 2012) (duplicative suits defined by similarity of claims, parties, and relief)
- Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2002) (no rule requires dismissal of later similar suits)
- Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999) (discussing overlapping class suits in different districts)
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (factors for § 1404 transfer analysis)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (stay requires clear case of hardship or inequity)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (party seeking a stay bears burden to justify exercise of discretion)