Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Casualty Co.
842 F. Supp. 2d 1360
N.D. Ga.2012Background
- This is a declaratory judgment action seeking defense/indemnity and breach of contract from several insurers for CLC in connection with underlying publicity-rights actions.
- Underlying actions against CLC, EA Sports, and others were filed nationwide, with several suits in the Northern District of California.
- National Union issued multiple CGL/umbrella policies to EA Sports since 2007, with CLC as an additional insured; other defendants insured CLC under various policies.
- Policies were delivered to IMG in Ohio or to CLC in Georgia, with Georgia-based brokers; delivery location informs governing law considerations.
- National Union filed a separate California Coverage Action in Oct. 2011 seeking a declaration that it owes no defense/indemnity duty, creating a potentially duplicative dispute.
- CLC filed this Georgia action on Oct. 10, 2011 seeking defense/indemnity from the named insurers and damages; defendants moved to dismiss or transfer arguing nonjoinder of National Union.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether National Union must be joined under Rule 19 | National Union can be joined; complete relief available without it; joinder feasible | National Union is a necessary/indispensable party to avoid prejudice or inconsistent obligations | National Union not a necessary party; action may proceed without it; joinder feasible; not indispensable |
| Whether the case should be transferred to the Northern District of California | Georgia is proper forum and plaintiff's forum preference should be respected | California forum is more convenient given related actions | Denies transfer; proceeding in Georgia; factors weigh against transfer |
| Whether the case should be stayed pending resolution of related actions | Stay unnecessary as issues are distinct; avoid prejudice to CLC | Stay would streamline related proceedings | Stay denied; no stay unless California action stayed too |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253 (11th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff's forum choice generally respected; transfer standards apply to convenience and justice)
- In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570 (11th Cir. 1989) (three criteria for transfer: party/witness convenience and interests of justice)
- SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 2004) (strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs' forum choice)
- Burger King Corp. v. American Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 119 F.R.D. 672 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (Rule 19 indispensability analysis; join if feasible)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (apply lex loci contractus for choice-of-law when applying forum law)
- Martin v. South Carolina Bank, 811 F. Supp. 679 (M.D. Ga. 1992) (considerations for efficiency and consolidation in related actions)