26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ANITA WHITE, ANITA C HAYWOOD, AND HILLARY SCOTT HAYWOOD, ANDHILLARY KELLEY, DAVID CHARLES LLC, A ENTERTAINMENT, LADY O
ASE PP . TO N v. O M .
Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page1of13 2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION Plaintiff, Plaintiff, D Defendants. ISMISS The HonorableRicardo S. Martinez /S WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON OF DISTRICT WESTERN TAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES /T RANSFER RANSFER SEATTLE DIVISION DIVISION SEATTLE
F
N JURY DEMAND DEMAND JURY Case No.2:20-CV-01360-RSM T D O RIDAY RANSFER OR RANSFER OTE ON ISMISS PPOSITION TO
, ,
N ORIN THE M OVEMBER OTION S TAY D EFENDANTS C A
ALENDAR 6, LTERNATIVE
1700 2020
S EVENTH ’ :
M S EATTLE OTION TO OTION , A TO VE (206) COOLEY ., ,
S WA UITE
452-8700 452-8700
98101 98101 1900 1900
LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
IV. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION ...... IV. ARGUMENT ...... III. STATEMENT OFFACTS ...... INTRODUCTION ...... II. I. C O ASE PP . TO TO N O A. Ms. White’s Ms. Motionto Dismiss isLikely to Succeed...... A. . A StayWould Prejudice Ms. White byDelayingaResolution. . B. M . Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page2of13
2:20- OTION TO TO OTION CV -01360-RSM D ISMISS /S
TAY /T RANSFER RANSFER TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF
-i-
...... 2
1700 ...... 4
S EVENTH ...... 8 S EATTLE A VE COOLEY (206) 452-8700 ., ,
S WA UITE Page
..... 3 98101 98101 1900 1900
... 9 LLP 1
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Pacesetter Sys., Inc.v.Medtronic, Inc 28 U.S.C.§1404(a) ...... Statutes Zide SportShopofOhio,Inc.v.EdTobergateAssocs. Grp.Inc., Upstart Grp.LLCv. Grp.Inc. Upstart Grp.LLCv. Tempco Elec.HeaterCorp.v.OmegaEng’g,Inc. Power Sys.,Inc.v.HygenicCorp. Ontel Prods. Corp.v.MindscopeProds. Kerotest Mfg.Co.v.C-O-TwoFireEquip. J.M. SmuckerCo.v.PromotioninMotion,Inc. AmSouth Bankv.Dale America’s Collectibles Network, Inc.v.Scorpiniti Int’l Union,UnitedAutomobile, Aerospa Catholic HealthPartners v.CareLogistics,LLC Alltrade, Inc. v.UniweldProds.,Inc. Cases C O ASE PP 2020 WL (W.D. 869743 Wash.Jan.2,2020)...... 819 F.2d746(7thCir.1987) ...... 2014 WL (E.D.Tenn.June24,2014) 2865811 ...... 678 F.2d93(9thCir.1982) ...... 220 F.Supp.3d555(D.N.J.2016) ...... (1952) 342 U.S.180 ...... 420 F.Supp.3d646(N.D.Ohio2019) ...... 16 F.App’x433(6thCir.2001) ...... 2020 WL (W.D. 1934059 Wash. Apr.22,2020) ...... UAW v.DanaCorp. 973 F.Supp.2d787(N.D.Ohio2013) ...... 946 F.2d622(9thCir.1991) ...... 386 F.3d763(6thCir.2004) ...... 2007 WL (E.D.Tenn.Feb.8,2007) 470351 ...... TO TO N O M . Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page3of13
2:20- OTION TO TO OTION CV -01360-RSM D ISMISS , , 1999WL (N.D.Ohio1999) 33237054 ...... /S
TAY /T RANSFER RANSFER TABLE OF AUTHORITIES TABLE OF , , ., ,
, ce &Agric. Implement WorkersofAm.-
, , ...... -ii- ,
, , ...... , ...... 5 ...... 7 ...... 6 ...... 8 ...... 5
...... 8, 9 1700
S EVENTH S ...... 7 EATTLE A VE COOLEY (206) 452-8700 ., ...... 4 ,
S WA Page(s) UITE ...... 4
98101 98101 1900 1900
.....4 LLP ....7 1, 4 ....7 ..7
5
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C Antebellum’s use of the LADY A mark continuesunabated. A Antebellum’s useoftheLADY while hibernation in placed be effectively will claims White’s Dismis to Motion the on reached is decision a until action that Motion to Dismiss. The Middle District of Tennessee has alread Inc. v.UniweldProds., cir these Under uncertainty” of the first-file case renders dismissal on first- dismissal. justify to action first-filed no is whic arguments, these on successful is White Ms. If Dismiss”). personal jurisdictionandonth Ten the dismiss to moved has White Ms. acknowledges, Antebellum d of purpose the for made lawsuit i as when, applied be not should transfer, or stay Ms. White’s substantive trademark infringemen initiative, reachedouttoherpropose. t terms coexistence rejected had she after Action”), “Tennessee the for Court District States United the in relief declaratory in violation of Ms. White’s trademarkLADY A for nearly thirty years. In June, Lady Antebellum rights. chang The band then pr I. Antebellum”). Hil and Haywood, David LLC, Entertainment, A Lady Defendants of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transf O
ASE
PP . TO N O M In addition, equity militates against staying this proceeding p Ms. White is a Seattle-based independent recording artist, who artist, recording independent Seattle-based a is White Ms. Lady Antebellum now invokes the “first-to-file” rule as grounds as rule “first-to-file” the invokes now Antebellum Lady I Plaintiff AnitaWhite, throughhe . NTRODUCTION NTRODUCTION
Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page4of13 2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION D ISMISS
/S TAY , 946F.2d622,628-29(9thCir.1991). e groundthatitisanimproper /T RANSFER RANSFER s the case here, the first-file the here, case the s epriving the natural plaintiff natural the epriving r undersignedcounsel,hereby
to-file grounds improper. d action is an improper anticipatory improper an is action d anticipatorylawsuit (the “Motionto s. If this action is also stayed, Ms. stayed, also is actionthis If s. er or Stay (Dkt. 26), filed on behalf Middle District of Tennessee (the Tennessee of District Middle of her choice of forum. As Lady As forum. of choice her of the ongoing harm caused by Lady by caused harm ongoing the t action. But the “first-to-file” rule y stayed substantive discovery in h is likely, then there effectively there then likely, is h e-emptively sued Ms. White for for White Ms. sued e-emptively usacs te “jurisdictional the cumstances, hat the band had, on their own their on had, band the hat ed their band name to LADY A ending a determination of the lary Scott (together “Lady (together Scott lary submits thisOppositionto nessee Action for lack of lack for Action nessee 1700 for the Court to dismiss, has used the trademark trademark the used has
S EVENTH S EATTLE A See Alltrade, VE (206) COOLEY ., ,
S WA UITE
452-8700 452-8700
98101 98101 1900 1900
LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C performed music under the trademark and stage name LADY A. A. LADY name stage and trademark the under music performed Whi Ms. years, thirty nearly For 2-3. ¶¶ Decl.”) (“White 27-19 as aperforming artist, Ms.White has beenbased out oftheSea mark. mark. abo concerns her discuss to band the with meeting Zoom 2020 15, Id. cou Antebellum’s Lady with call a in participate to her invited Memphis, Tennessee basedonareferralfrom afriend. re she disputes, trademark with experience no having and means, Id. p longer no would it that 2020 11, June on announced Antebellum the inherent conflict of the parties sharing the same name and and name same the sharing parties the of conflict inherent the i her for compensation any without dispute,” this of resolution trademar and fees “attorneys’ $10,000 to up of payment included Antebellum. White Decl. ¶ 13. But the revised agreement thatMs. White hadexpressed.Dkt.27-5(the “Declaratory Compl.”) Antebellum had a draft agreement at the ready, work. of decades over developed financed group like Lady Antebellum, would overwhelm and erase by particular in name, A LADY the of use that concerned deeply friends. from texts from change name O II. ASE PP
¶9.This callledtoa furth ¶ 5. Thereafter, they would perform as “Lady A.” . TO N O Id. M Ms. White is an independent recording artist and a resident of resident a and artist recording independent an is White Ms. After the death of George Floyd George of death the After The next day, Ms. White was contacted by Lady Antebellum’s mana Antebellum’s Lady by contacted was White Ms. day, next The vr h nx we, s Wies r bn cusl otne t n to continued counsel bono pro White’s Ms. week, next the Over S .
Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page5of13 TATEMENT OF OF TATEMENT 2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION ¶ 10. Although Ms. White agreed t D ISMISS F /S ACTS TAY er invitation from Lady Antebell Lady er invitationfrom /T
RANSFER RANSFER Id. ¶ , . meitl atr h Jn 1 meig Lady meeting, 15 June the after Immediately 8. 2, ¶¶ Id.
on May 25, 2020, and the protes the and 2020, 25, May on ¶ 6. Ms. White, as an independent artist of limited of artist independent an as White, Ms. 6. ¶ o explore the possibility of id. 2.
¶ 12, one that did not address the concerns that Id. Ms. White learned of Lady Antebellum’s Id.
¶8. njury, or any concrete solution for solution concrete any or njury, ttle, Washington area. um for Ms. White toattendaJune um forMs. nsel and Defendant Hillary Scott. Hillary Defendant and nsel trademark. trademark. ¶ 28. she received on June 24, 2020 24, June on received she Id. erform as “Lady Antebellum.” “Lady as erform a large, well-known and well- and well-known large, a the brand identity that she had e a idpnet rit has artist, independent an te, k filing fees incurred in the the in incurred fees filing k ut their use of the LADY A LADY the of use their ut tained pro bono counsel in in counsel bono pro tained ¶ 2. Throughout her career her Throughout 2. ¶ Seattle, Washington. Dkt. Washington. Seattle, coexistence, she remained 1700 ts that followed, Lady followed, that ts Id.
gtae ih Lady with egotiate S gement team, who who team, gement ¶ 14. Ms. White EVENTH S EATTLE A Id. VE (206) COOLEY ¶3. ., ,
S WA UITE
452-8700
98101 1900
LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a co a when action an over jurisdiction decline to court district She further cautioned that afirm trial date unlikelyifis the a render not may judge presiding Tenness in litigation that parties the warned Holmes D. Barbara Tenn the in Conference Management Case Initial the During 4-5. until briefed fully be not will Dismiss to Motion the 2020, 23, O attorneys directfurthercommu a and counsel litigation trademark as himself identified Hughes representation new her of them advise to attorneys Antebellum’s bono counselatCooley LLP. her representing adequately not was counsel her that concluded III. jurisdictional discovery set by wa which discovery, jurisdictional substantive correspondence. substantive correspondence. new White’s Ms. and Antebellum Lady between communication email La Judd of Declaration agreement. lawsuit. lawsuit. and because Lady Antebellum’s complaint seeking declaratory rel pers lacks Tennessee of District Middle the that grounds the on September 16, 2020. 8th. ASE PP
. TO See N O M The first-to file rule is “a ge “a is rule first-to file The A cont Hughes, Brendan counsel, new White’s Ms. 2020, 25, June On n uy , r Hge poie Ld Atblu wt a eie d revised a with Antebellum Lady provided Hughes Mr. 6, July On Ms. White filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative tran .
DeclaratoryCompl.;LauterDecl.,Ex.A¶5. Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page6of13 2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM RGUMENT OTION TO TO OTION Id. On September 28, 2020, Lady Antebellum requested the opportun the requested Antebellum Lady 2020, 28, September On D
ISMISS See Dkt. 27-18. Ms. White seeks dismissal of Lady Antebellum’s co /S TAY Id. the Court, and the deposition o Id. /T nications concerningthedispute Without warning, Lady Antebellum filed the Complaint on July Complaint the filed Antebellum Lady warning, Without RANSFER RANSFER ¶15. decision on the Motion to Dism to Motion the on decision nerally recognized doctrine of f of doctrine recognized nerally sgranted. Lauter Decl. ¶ 3. uter (“Lauter Decl.”), Ex. A Ex. Decl.”), (“Lauter uter
3.
actionremains inTennessee. f Ms. White scheduled for November mplaint involving the same parties same the involving mplaint at least December 14, 2020. 2020. 14, December least at to Cooley. onal jurisdiction over Ms. White, Ms. over jurisdiction onal . Declaratory Compl. ¶ 30. Mr. ief was an improper anticipatory ¶ 4. This was only the second the only was This 4. ¶ interests, and retained new pro new retained and interests, essee Action, Magistrate Judge Magistrate Action, essee iss until April or later. later. or April until iss ee is moving slowly, and the the and slowly, moving is ee ederal comity which permitsa whichcomity ederal kd ht ay Antebellum’s Lady that sked ae o te ceue for schedule the on Based sfer, the Tennessee Action on 1700 one, n te first the and counsel, Id.
S
EVENTH raft settlement settlement raft S t t conduct to ity EATTLE ce Lady acted A VE (206) COOLEY ., , Id. mplaint
Id. S WA UITE
452-8700 Id. ¶ 6. 6. ¶
98101 1900
¶ LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C § 1404(a). As setforth below, each of theseclaims islikely []r h cneine f parties of convenience the “[f]or anticipatory lawsuit. In the alternative, Ms. White has reques personal jurisdiction over Ms. Wh personal jurisdictionoverMs. all Tennessee MTDisbasedlargelyo law. the ignore and facts the invent) even (and mischaracterize delay inresolvingtheparties' disputeonthemerits. Toavoi will here stay a Dismiss, to Motion the pending stayed been has Mor unwarranted. is action this succee to likely is Dismiss to Motion the below, detail further in litigate to opportunity the of White Ms. deprive to intended lacks personal jurisdiction over her, and because Lady Antebell rule should be excepted. Ms. White is seeking dismissal of the faith, anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.” faith, anticipatorysuit,andforum shopping.” circumstances under which an exception to the first-to-file rul fir the with dispense discretion, Co. v.C-O-TwoFireEquip. O whether tokeepthedispute. first the in court the allow to proceeding the stay or dismiss, F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982). If the rule applies, the court and issues has already been filed in another district.” ASE PP M. ht hs setd w gons o dsisl f h Tenn the of dismissal for grounds two asserted has White Ms. . . TO N O M eedns i dsrbn te oin o ims te ense A Tennessee the Dismiss to Motion the describing in Defendants, A. The record before the Court reflects precisely those circumstan However, the rule is not to be applied mechanically. However, theruleisnottobeapplied .
Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page7of13 2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION
Ms. White’sMotionto Dismiss is Likely toSucceed. D ISMISS /S TAY Alltrade /T , 342U.S.180,183(1952)). Acourt“can,intheexerciseof RANSFER RANSFER eover, given that substantive d substantive that given eover, tfld rnil fr reasons for principle st-filed ite, and(2)Defendants’compl n theexistence ofthisaction” n wtess i te interes the in witnesses, and , 946F.2dat622.
Id. 4.
(internal citationsomitted.) Pacesetter Sys.,Inc.v.Medtronic, Inc
in the second-filed action may transfer, d this, discovery shouldproceed. to succeedon themerits. Id. ted transfer of the Tennessee Action e typically will be made include bad Tennessee Action because the court d, and thus dismissal or transfer of transfer or dismissal thus and d, her homeforum. As explained in suit the opportunity to determine to opportunity the suit um’s lawsuit was anticipatory and iscovery in the Tennessee Action Action Tennessee the in iscovery at627-28(quoting of equity.” result in a lengthy and indefinite and lengthy a in result —it isnotbasedonthisaction aint inTennesseeisanimproper It is simply not true that “the that true not simply is It o jsie” ne 2 U.S.C. 28 under justice,” of t ces in which the first-to-file se Ato: 1 lc of lack (1) Action: essee 1700
S Id. EVENTH t 628. at S ction, grossly grossly ction, Kerotest Mfg. EATTLE A VE (206) COOLEY ., ,
S WA UITE
., 678 452-8700 “The [its]
98101 1900
at LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C O infringe makes and letters based personal jurisdiction. It is well established that “a non-resi her and withou insufficient, state; are counsel, through including Antebellum, the in activity enforcement her to unrelated are business activities in Tennessee do not materially bear on the Th position. their supports that one alone let brief, their of 26 at p. 10:12-13 (“Mot.”). La period of less than two weeks, she accepted the help of pro bon Anteb Lady of aftermath immediate the in because, and State the based Tennessee” with connection the defendantcommercialized itsproducts.”). (explaining that “the relevant c ac promotional and consumers”); marketing, sales, “massive despite availment citation (internal 2019) Ohio (N.D. 654-55 646, 3d Supp. F. 420 rise to the claim for declaratory relief. declaratory defendant’s business activitiesintheforum state activity. non-infringing allegedly the than rather forum, the enforc which to extent the and efforts, enforcement defendant’s for claims because is This omitted). citations and quotations Power Sys.,Inc.v.HygenicCorp. declarat the which to extent the activiti enforcement directed purposefully defendant a which to declaratory judgment action, the ASE PP . TO N O M The Middle District of Tennessee of District Middle The Lady Antebellum states in a conclusory manner that Ms. White ha White Ms. that manner conclusory a in states Antebellum Lady .
Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page8of13 2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION OntelProds.Corp.v.Mindscope D ISMISS /S TAY ontacts relate to the defendant /T dy Antebellum not does cite a si relevant inquiry for establish ory judgment claim arises out o out arises claim judgment ory RANSFER RANSFER etbsd eehn cls o a to calls telephone ment-based , 2014 WL 2865811, at *6 (E.D. Te *6 (E.D. at 2865811, WL 2014 , solely on allegations that she that allegations on solely Id.
See e.g.J.M.SmuckerCo.v.PromotioninMotion,Inc. Lacks Personal Jurisdiction ov Jurisdiction Personal Lacks 5.
, 220 F. Supp. 3d 555, 561 (D.N.J. 2016) (D.N.J. 561 555, 3d Supp. F. 220 ,
dent defendant who sends infringement- e law is clear, however: Ms. White’s Ms. however: clear, is law e ’s enforcement activities, not to where ing specific jurisdiction is “the extent have nobearingontheissuesgiving jurisdictional analysis, because they o counsel located in Memphis. Dkt. Id. ngle legal precedent in this section t more, to support the exercise of exercise the support to more, t f or relates to those activities[.]” activities[.]” those to relates or f ement activities were directed to directed were activities ement declaratory relief arise from the the from arise relief declaratory es at residents of the forum, and forum, the of residents at es omitted) (finding no purposeful no (finding omitted) at *6-7. Under this analysis, a a analysis, this Under *6-7. at has had a few performances in in performances few a had has ellum’s name change and for a for and change name ellum’s trademark infringing resident resident infringing trademark omnctos ih Lady with communications nn. June 24, 2014) (internal (internal 2014) 24, June nn. iiis agtn Ohio targeting tivities 1700 s a “strong history and history “strong a s er Ms. White: Ms. er
S EVENTH S EATTLE A VE (206) COOLEY ., ,
S WA UITE
452-8700 In a
98101 1900
LLP ,
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C or weeks before the coercive su coercive the before weeks or plai declaratory of view dim a “take courts Indeed, complaint. t of favor in claim judgement declaratory first-filed a dismiss White Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. Incircumstances likethese, courts inth th regarding discussions parties’ O convenient forthem. A Tennessee the initiated immediately re Antebellum agreement—Lady attorneys—a Antebellum’s Lady with communication substantive tradem retained White Ms. after dismissal of the Tennessee Action on the ground that it is an i plaintiff does not, by those act jurisdiction. jurisdiction. due under sufficient state plaintiff's resident the of laws the are unrelatedtotheir o actions the admission, own Antebellum’s Lady by But Memphis. Tenn. Feb.8,2007)(citingcases). motion todismiss for lackof personal jurisdiction. and2202.”DeclaratoryC “jurisdiction under28U.S.C.§§2201 to rise” “giv[es] allegedly that D.C.), Washington, in (located statements made by Ms. White (located in Seattle, Washington), Lady Antebellum represents in their complaint in the Tennessee w fees legal in $10,000 to up of of negotiation to limited was weeks, two than less lasted which ASE PP . TO N O M Lady Antebellum makes much of Ms. White’s fleeting engagement o engagement fleeting White’s Ms. of much makes Antebellum Lady The Tennessee Action is an Improper Anticipatory Lawsuit: Anticipatory Improper an is Action Tennessee The suc to likely is she and White, Ms. favor law the and facts The .
Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page9of13 2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION America’s CollectiblesNetwork,Inc.v.Scorpiniti D ISMISS alleged needtoseek declaratoryrelief. See /S Declaratory Compl. ¶ 30; Lauter Decl., Ex. A ¶¶ 4-5.Atthat DeclaratoryCompl. ¶30;LauterDecl.,Ex.A¶¶ TAY s alone, purposefully avail him /T its filed by a ‘natural plaintif ‘natural a by filed its hile failing to address his cli his address to failing hile RANSFER RANSFER e LADY A mark had lasted rough lasted had mark A LADY e r ltgto cusl t Cooley at counsel litigation ark
6.
mproper anticipatory lawsuit. Shortly Hisonlyinvolvement inthismatter, ent’s concerns. White Decl. Whiteconcerns. ent’s self of the benefits and protections of f’ and who seem to have done so for so done have to seem who and f’ e SixthCircuit have not hesitated to the Middle District of Tennessee’s of District Middle the process to be” subject to specific to subject be” to process ntiffs who file their suits mere days he subsequently filed substantive filed subsequently he an agreement that had a payment id Action, it was the combination of , ompl. ¶31.
. ¶ 2, and actions by new counsel 2007 WL 470351, at *3 (E.D. *3 at 470351, WL 2007 ly three weeks in total. total. in weeks three ly f her prior pro bono counsel bono pro prior her f , and upon Cooley’s first first Cooley’s upon and , ceed on the merits of her of merits the on ceed ction in the forum most most forum the in ction Ms. White also seeks also White Ms. 1700 ie dat settlement draft vised f counsel located in located counsel f
S EVENTH S EATTLE A VE (206) point, the COOLEY ¶ ., ,
S WA 14. UITE
452-8700
See
98101 As 1900
LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C (7th Cir.1987)). (quoting courthouse.’”) 33237054, at *3 (“‘The federal declaratory judgment is not a pr AmSouth Bank O substance ofMs.White’s request woul and offer settlement another the that Defendants informed have would they then gamesmanship, app equally language in explained cou district the Quoting 2001). Cir. (6th 437 433, App’x F. 16 w expired extension deadline negotiation a before day a brought declaratory a dismiss to decision court’s district the affirmed 2004). favorable forum.” a acquiring purpose of the neelm o rsig o h cutos t scr a convenient a secure to courthouse the to rushing for Antebellum in the cases cited above. Accordingly, the Middle District of wanted togetthecourthousebeforeunion knew therace woul it that Werking Mr. told had WL 33237054, at *6 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (“Dana’s decision to sue be sh they intervention, court wanted Health Partnersv.CareLogistics,LLC the regarding defendants with discussions ongoing during action declarato when occurred” had fencing procedural that conclusion United Automobile, Aerospace &Agric.Impl ASE PP . TO N O M n h Atraie Tase i Wratd Warranted: is Transfer Alternative, the In For example, in in example, For Lady Antebellum is guilty of the same kind of deceptive gamesma . Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page10of13
2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION , 386 F.3d at 789-90 (holding that (holding 789-90 at F.3d 386 , D ISMISS Tempco Elec.HeaterCorp.v.OmegaEng’g,Inc. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. v. Ed Tobergate Assocs. Zide SportShopofOhio,Inc.v.EdTobergate /S TAY /T RANSFER RANSFER fortransferinthealternativ d, to the union’s request for request union’s the to d, d prefer to seek a judicial re judicial a seek to prefer d licable here: “If Plaintiffs’ “If here: licable ould have been clear about th , 973 F. Supp. 2d 787, 795 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (“If plaintiffs
AmSouth Bankv.Dale ement WorkersofAm.-UAW v.Dana Corp. 7.
the factual record supported record factual the
ay neelm os o ades the address not does Antebellum Lady Tennessee is unlikely to reward Lady e. Instead, thebandclaims thatMs. judgment action that the plaintiffs the that action judgment conduct was not mere deceptive mere not was conduct ize to the winner of the race to the was underway.”). further information shows that it that shows information further solution.” solution.” ithout informing the other side. other the informing ithout fore responding, as Mr. Waders the filed plaintiffs judgment ry course of litigation); of course rt’s finding, the Sixth Circuit i intentions.”); eir , 386 F.3d 763, 788 (6th Cir. (6th 788 763, F.3d 386 , ou. forum. dd o itn t make to intend not did y nship criticized by courts 1700 , 819 F.2d 746, 749-50 746, F.2d 819 , Id.
S at 438. 438. at EVENTH , the Sixth Circuit Sixth the , the “unavoidable “unavoidable the Dana S EATTLE Int’l Union, 19 WL 1999 , A VE (206) COOLEY Catholic See also ., ,
S WA , 1999 1999 , UITE
452-8700
98101 1900
LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C Tsuchida ( Tsuchida lawsuit. anticipatory improper an was complaint earlier subject ofa pending motion tod anothe in action judgment declaratory a to subsequent filed was concerned allegations of trademark infringement; and there, as 2020) 22, Apr. Wash. (W.D. *1 at 1934059, WL 2020 instructive. dormancy thatwould followastay. proceeding, each of posture early the and Dismiss to Motion the Ms. given minimal is which results, inconsistent of possibility conflicting of risk the and resources judicial wasting as such asso risks “eliminate would it because warranted is stay a that continues to suffer ongoing injury from Lady Antebellum’s misco ¶¶ 17-18. witnesses and thesignificantdi re other among given, th warranted is If transfer outright, dismissed White. Ms. for forum of choice obvious the is Washington upon. calling anticipates she whom witnesses non-party the District of Washington is where all of the evidence in her poss this of artist independent an is White Ms. knows, Antebellum Lady as O above, Ms. White’s relevant connections with the State of Tenne i transfer seeking for justification White’s Ms. But 11:12-16. tha argue to pretext a as solely action present the filed White ASE PP forum. White Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, 8. As she has represented in the the in represented has she As 8. 2-3, ¶¶ Decl. White forum. . TO N O M ug Jns dcso t sa te cin in action the stay to decision Jones’ Judge ad delay will action this Staying B. . Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page11of13
2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM
OTION TO TO OTION
see
Upstart Grp.LLCv. Grp.Inc. A StayWouldPrejudiceMs.WhitebyDelayingaResolution. D ISMISS /S TAY /T sparity in the parties’ abiliti parties’ the in sparity ismiss for lack of personal jur RANSFER RANSFER
uiain f s Wies clai White’s Ms. of judication 8.
, 2020 WL 869743, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. Wash. (W.D. *3 at 869743, WL 2020 , Upstart Grp.LLCv.Inc.
Id. es tolitigateindistant forums. On the recommendation of Judge Judge of recommendation the On isdiction andonthegroundthat ession is located, as well as most of Id. t transfer is warranted. Mot. at p. at Mot. warranted. is transfer t here, the complaint in Washington s self-evident. First, as explained explained as First, self-evident. s White’s likelihood of success on success of likelihood White’s results.” Mot. at p. 11. But the ciated with duplicative litigation, duplicative with ciated asons, the location of third-party of location the asons, ssee are is far outweighed by the certain certain the by outweighed far is ¶ 17. The Western District of nduct. Lady Antebellum argues r state, Illinois, which was the the was which Illinois, state, r Tennessee Action, the Western the Action, Tennessee limited means who resides in resides who means limited . That matter, like this one, this like matter, That . Tnese cin s not is Action Tennessee e de minimis s ee a M. White Ms. as even ms, 1700
S EVENTH S . Second, and EATTLE A VE (206) COOLEY ., ,
S WA See UITE
452-8700
98101 is id 1900
LLP .
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C Dated: November 2,2020 to Dismiss orinthe Alternative in Tennessee is moving slowly. slowly. moving is Tennessee in Magistrate Judge Holmes in the M that therehasbeennoprogress and cautioned that a firm trial date is unlikely. Motio the on decision a render not may judge presiding the that IV. proceed. Mi the with result inconsistent outwei far more, or months six of period a for hibernation into O dismiss in Illinois. pending Washington in action the stayed Jones Judge 2020)), 2, ASE PP
. TO N O M For the reasons set forth above, Ms. White respectfully request respectfully White Ms. above, forth set reasons the For The same fate is likely to befall Ms. White and Lady Antebellum Lady and White Ms. befall to likely is fate same The C . Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page12of13
2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM ONCLUSION OTION TO TO OTION D Upstart ISMISS
/S , 2020 WL 1934059 at *1. Since then, it appears from the publi TAY /T , toTransfer orStaybedenied in eitherproceeding.LauterD de itit f ense. Dis Tennessee. of District ddle RANSFER RANSFER Id. iddle District of Tennessee has ¶ 6. Judge Holmes made it a point to share with the parties the with share to point a it made Holmes Judge 6. ¶
Id. Email: Fax: (206)452-8800 Tel.: (206)452-8700 Seattle, WA 98101-1355 1700 SeventhAvenue,Suite1900 COOLEY LLP Christopher B. Durbin(WSBA#41159) Judd D.Lauter( Email: Fax: (650)843-7400 Tel.: (650)843-5960 Palo Alto,CA 94304 3175 HanoverStreet COOLEY LLP /s/JuddD.Lauter Respectfully submitted, 9. The very real risk of putting the parties’ dispute
[email protected] [email protected]
. ecl. ¶7. pro hacvice ghs the possibility of reaching an reaching of possibility the ghs n to Dismiss until April or later, or April until Dismiss to n warned the parties that litigation oey hud e emte to permitted be should covery
the outcome of the motion to motion the of outcome the
s that Defendants’ Motion Motion Defendants’ that s if this action is stayed. is action this if 1700
)
S EVENTH S EATTLE A VE (206) COOLEY ., c record ,
S WA UITE
452-8700
98101 1900
LLP
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
C O ASE PP . TO N O M . Case 2:20-cv-01360-RSMDocument30Filed11/02/20Page13of
2:20-cv-01360-RSM 2:20-cv-01360-RSM OTION TO TO OTION D ISMISS /S TAY /T RANSFER RANSFER
Email: Fax: (202)842-7899 Tel.: (202)842-7800 Washington, D.C.20004-2446 1299 PennsylvaniaAvenueNW, 700 Suite Email: Fax: (212)479-6275 Tel.: (212)479-6000 New York,NY10036 1114 AvenueoftheAmericas COOLEY LLP Joseph M.Drayton( Email: COOLEY Jane VanBenten( Brendan J. Hughes ( Counsel forPlaintiff 10.
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
LLP pro hacvice pro hacvice pro hacvice
A NITA NITA 1700 W
HITE ) S EVENTH
) )
S EATTLE A VE (206) COOLEY ., ,
S WA UITE
452-8700
98101 1900
LLP