Taylor v. Coty Inc
1:18-cv-00070
| S.D. Ala. | Feb 7, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Tara Taylor filed a putative nationwide class action in Oct. 2017 alleging damages from Clairol Balsam Color hair dye containing p‑Phenylenediamine.
- Four virtually identical suits were previously filed in late 2016–May 2017 (Jones, Caddell, Bowens, Franks), naming the same defendants and asserting substantially overlapping factual and legal claims.
- Caddell, Bowens, and Franks were transferred to and consolidated with Jones in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division.
- Defendants moved to transfer Taylor to the Southern District of Alabama under the first‑to‑file rule; the motion was unopposed and the defendants noted the same counsel represents the plaintiffs across the suits.
- The magistrate judge granted the unopposed motion, finding substantial overlap and that the earlier‑filed Alabama action should decide the consolidated disputes to avoid duplicative litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this action should be transferred under the first‑to‑file rule | Taylor did not oppose transfer | Transfer appropriate because substantially similar, earlier suits are pending in the Southern District of Alabama | Transfer granted to the Southern District of Alabama |
| Whether the cases substantially overlap (trigger for first‑to‑file) | No contest to overlap | Core issues and evidence are the same across suits (whether the product caused damages) | Court found substantial overlap and overlap of core issues |
| Whether identity of parties or issues must be exact for first‑to‑file to apply | Not asserted — plaintiff consented | First‑to‑file requires only substantial overlap, not identity of parties or issues | Court applied rule despite non‑identical parties/issues; substantial overlap sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999) (describing contours of the first‑to‑file rule)
- West Gulf Maritime Ass'n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985) (principles of comity and avoiding duplicative litigation)
- Dillard v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 961 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1992) (forum‑seized principle and initial court preference)
- Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Finance Corp., 121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997) (first‑to‑file does not require identical parties or issues)
- Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Sweet Little Mex. Corp., 665 F.3d 671 (5th Cir. 2011) (definition of substantial overlap between cases)