Infinity Labs, LLC v. Radiance Technologies. Inc., 3:21-cv-00170

Radiance Technologies (Alabama corp) sued former employees Edge, Molnar, Glendenning and Infinity Labs in Alabama on May 20, 2021, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, conversion, breach of loyalty, and defamation based on alleged misappropriation of confidential information.
The three former employees are Ohio residents who worked at Radiance’s Beavercreek, Ohio office; they left in 2020 and formed Infinity Labs (Ohio-based competitor).
Approximately one month after Radiance filed in Alabama, Infinity, Edge, Molnar and Glendenning filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio against Radiance and its CEO Bailey asserting tortious interference, deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, and related claims.
Infinity removed the Alabama action to the Northern District of Alabama and moved there to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Infinity or, alternatively, to transfer the Alabama case to Ohio; the NDAL denied dismissal as to the individual defendants and ordered supplemental briefing on jurisdiction over Infinity.
Radiance and Bailey moved in Ohio to dismiss the Ohio case under the first-to-file rule. The Ohio court declined to decide the motion finally and overruled it without prejudice pending the Alabama court’s resolution of whether it has personal jurisdiction over Infinity and any renewed transfer motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Application of the first-to-file rule	The Alabama (first-filed) court should decide applicability; Ohio suit is not duplicative	Ohio case duplicates Alabama litigation and should be dismissed under first-to-file	Motion to dismiss under first-to-file overruled without prejudice; court deferred decision pending Alabama court’s jurisdiction/transfer rulings
Whether parties/issues are sufficiently identical	Plaintiffs contend key claims and parties differ, so rule shouldn't apply	Defendants contend parties and issues substantially overlap and Alabama filed first	Court found parties nearly identical and Alabama filed first but issues not fully identical; factor favors dismissal but not dispositive now
Personal jurisdiction over Infinity in Alabama	Infinity contends Alabama lacks personal jurisdiction over the LLC	Radiance contends NDAL has jurisdiction over the defendants, including Infinity	NDAL has ruled it has jurisdiction over the individual defendants but has not yet decided jurisdiction over Infinity; Ohio court deferred first-to-file decision until NDAL rules
Viability of unfair competition claim under Ohio law	Plaintiffs assert plausible unfair competition claim	Defendants argue unfair competition claim fails to state a claim	Court declined to resolve the merits of that claim at this time

Baatz v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 814 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2016) (describing first-to-file rule and factors for its application)
Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, LLC v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (first-to-file promotes comity and avoids duplicative litigation)
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (federal courts should avoid duplicative litigation between districts)
West Gulf Maritime Ass'n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985) (first-to-file conserves judicial resources and prevents conflicting results)
EEOC v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969 (3d Cir. 1988) (avoiding piecemeal litigation supports abstention principles)
Smith v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n, 129 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 1997) (discussing identity of issues required for dismissal under first-to-file)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: plausible claim required to survive dismissal)