TRILOGY FEDERAL, LLC v. CIVITASDX LLC
1:24-cv-02713
| D.D.C. | Feb 5, 2025Background
- Trilogy Federal, LLC (Trilogy), a government contractor, provided financial management systems for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a subcontractor under a five-year contract starting in 2016.
- After the VA opened bidding for the contract renewal in 2021, Trilogy and its then-prime contractor were on opposing bids; the winning bid involved CivitasDX, a joint venture including several defendants.
- Trilogy alleges that its trade secrets were misappropriated through a former employee (Kila Thomas) and used in the winning bid, as well as claims for breach of contract and tortious interference.
- Before filing suit, Trilogy sent a demand letter to the defendants; CivitasDX and CMS preemptively filed a declaratory judgment action in California days later, seeking to establish that they had not violated Trilogy’s trade secret or contract rights.
- Trilogy then filed this action in the District of Columbia against all defendants; the California action involved only CivitasDX, CMS, and Trilogy.
- CivitasDX and CMS moved to dismiss or stay the D.C. action under the first-to-file rule, citing the earlier California suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the case be dismissed/stayed under first-to-file rule? | California action was a preemptive strike, D.C. is more convenient, all parties present | California was filed first, is the proper forum due to ties, and is further along | Denied; equities favor proceeding in D.C. |
| Is the California action the kind of anticipatory filing disfavored by courts? | Yes; it was filed in response to a demand letter, just before Trilogy was to file | No; it is not forum shopping, and defendants have affirmative claims | Found to be an improper preemptive filing, D.C. action proceeds |
| Can all disputes be adjudicated in California? | No; only some parties are in California case, but all are before this Court | Yes; defendants claim efficiency is not impaired by two forums | D.C. can adjudicate all claims more efficiently |
| Which forum is the most convenient and connected to the dispute? | D.C./Virginia area is where the parties, witnesses, and contracts are centered | California is convenient for moving defendants, proposal work occurred there | D.C. area is more convenient and connected |
Key Cases Cited
- Handy v. Shaw, Bransford, Veilleux & Roth, 325 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (district courts have discretion to dismiss or stay parallel litigation)
- UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 685 F.3d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (first-to-file rule recognized, but subject to equitable considerations)
- Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat’l Bank, 525 F.2d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (emphasizing balanced equitable approach over mechanical application of first-to-file)
- Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491 (1942) (court may consider complete adjudication in determining appropriateness of forum)