Collegiate Licensing Company v. American Casualty Co. of Reading Pennsylvania
713 F.3d 71
11th Cir.2013Background
- CLC is a licensing agent for over 200 colleges and the NCAA; EA uses licensed trademarks in its video games.
- Underlying Actions began in 2009 alleging CLC, EA, and the NCAA profited from unlicensed use of athlete names/likenesses.
- CLC is insured under multiple policies; National Union issued policies to EA in California with CLC as an additional insured; other carriers issued separate policies to CLC.
- National Union sued EA and CLC in California (Oct 2011) to determine duty to defend/indemnify; ISOP also plaintiff in that action.
- CLC filed the Georgia Action (Oct 10, 2011) seeking declaratory relief and breach of contract against the Appellants.
- The Appellants sought intervention in the California Action; the Georgia court granted an injunction on December 19, 2011, enjoining the intervention complaints; California had already granted permissive intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-filed rule applicability to intervention complaints | CLC contends first-filed rule applies to intervention claims | Appellants argue rule does not apply to intervention and California action is not second filed | Yes; Georgia properly applied first-filed rule to intervention complaints |
| Whether injunction against intervention was an abuse of discretion | CLC argues injunction respected comity and did not overstep sister court | Appellants claim injunctive overreach and improper All Writs Act reliance | No; district courtdid not abuse discretion |
| Anticipatory suit exception and 1404 factors | CLC asserts exception/factors do not warrant exception | Appellants rely on anticipatory suit and 1404 factors | No automatic departure; not warranted here |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169 (11th Cir. 1982) (first-filed rule applies across parallel federal proceedings)
- Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard; strong presumption in favor of first-filed forum)
- Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1971) (first-filed rule guidance and forum preference)
- Sutter Corp. v. P & P Industries, Inc., 125 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 1997) (first-filed rule principles and parallel actions)
- Dunlop v. Ledet’s Foodliner of Larose, Inc., 509 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir. 1975) (interpretation of judgments and avoiding implied holdings)