Seiwert v. First American Financial Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 3, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00988
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SCOTT SEIWERT, et al., 8 NO. C19-0988RSL Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 10 FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL 11 CORPORATION, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion to Transfer Venue or Stay 15 Pursuant to First-to-File Rule or, in the Alternative, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Dkt. # 8. 16 Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties,1 the Court 17 finds as follows: 18 This case involves defendants’ alleged failure to secure data, resulting in the disclosure of 19 the confidential information of millions of defendants’ customers. Plaintiffs allege that, despite 20 receiving warnings that their customers’ data was exposed and accessible, defendants did 21 nothing to protect the data until May 24, 2019, when a cybersecurity researcher and journalist 22 23 announced the defect on his blog. At least twenty-one class actions, many of which are brought 24 on behalf of a nationwide class, have been filed relating to the alleged disclosures of confidential 25 26 1 This matter can be decided on the papers submitted. Defendants’ request for oral argument is DENIED. 27 1 information. The first-filed action was filed in the Central District of California and assigned to 2 the Honorable Dale S. Fischer for handling: most of the other cases have already been 3 transferred to Judge Fischer as related (intradistrict) or under the first-to-file rule (interdistrict). 4 The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPMDL”) recently declined to centralize 5 proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, noting that where there are a small number of cases and 6 7 most are already pending in a single district, outright transfers under the first-to-file rule or 28 8 U.S.C. § 1404 are preferable to limited pretrial transfers. 9 Defendants argue that this case should be transferred to the Central District of California 10 under the first-to-file rule, which allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action 11 when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district. 12 Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991). The rule “is intended to 13 14 serve the purpose of promoting efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly.” Kohn 15 Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal 16 quotation marks and brackets omitted). A court considers three factors in deciding whether to 17 apply the first-to-file rule: the chronology of the two actions, the similarity of the parties, and the 18 similarity of the issues. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625. The Court finds that the first-to-file rule 19 20 applies. 21 Plaintiffs argue, however, that a transfer to the Central District of California is 22 inappropriate because, if a nationwide class is not certified or if Washington insurance law 23 provides protections that are unavailable to the residents of other states, transfer may ultimately 24 force Washington residents to litigate claims brought under Washington law in a California 25 26 27 1 court.2 Plaintiffs offer no reason to believe that the Central District is incapable of resolving the 2 class certification issues (including certifying statewide subclasses if appropriate) or of resolving 3 issues of Washington law. In its current posture, this case involves a nationwide class that 4 directly competes with the classes asserted in the cases pending in the Central District of 5 California. While “district court judges can, in the exercise of their discretion, dispense with the 6 7 first-filed principle for reasons of equity,” the circumstances justifying deviation from the 8 first-to-file rule include bad faith, anticipatory suit, or forum shopping. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628. 9 Plaintiffs do not argue that defendants filed prior lawsuits or acted in bad faith: rather, they 10 hypothesize that their own claims on behalf of a nationwide class will be rejected and the 11 resulting litigation will be more complicated than if this action were tried alone. The Court finds, 12 however, that judicial efficiency, case management considerations, and avoiding the risk of 13 14 inconsistent verdicts all support transfer so that a single district can determine how best to 15 resolve the competing and overlapping claims asserted in these cases. Deviation from the first- 16 to-file rule is not appropriate. 17 The parties dispute whether this case should be heard in the Western or Southern Division 18 of the Central District of California. The Central District manages its own division management 19 20 and case assignment, however, and the Court declines to interfere in these matters. 21 22 // 23 24 2 Plaintiffs also argued that defendants’ motion to transfer was premature because the JPMDL had not yet decided whether to centralize pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The JPMDL has 25 now denied the motion to transfer. In this context, plaintiffs represent that they would be willing to 26 coordinate discovery efforts with the majority of cases pending in the Central District of California and would agree to a stay of this proceeding pending the outcome of the first-filed case. 27 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to transfer is GRANTED. The Clerk 2 of Court is directed to transfer this case to the Central District of California where the first action 3 was filed. 4 5 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2019. 6 A 7 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27