Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01210/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01210-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEN & JERRY’S FRANCHISE )

INC., a Vermont )

Corporation, and BEN & )

JERRY’S HOMEMADE, INC., a )

Vermont Corporation, ) 

 )

 Plaintiffs, )

 )

 v. )

 )

MPA GROUP, INC., a )

California corporation, ) 

and MEHRDAD PORGHAVAMI, ) 

an individual, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. )

 ) 

___________________________)

CV 07-1210 LEW (KJM)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF

REMOVAL OF ACTION

ORDER DISMISSING THE

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is Defendants’ “Notice of Removal of

Action.” For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ request

is DENIED. 

At 1:32 P.M. EDT on June 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a

complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of

Vermont, seeking damages and declaratory relief from

Case 2:07-cv-01210-LEW -KJM Document 13 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Defendants as a result of alleged breaches of a franchise

agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Nearly an hour

later, at 2:27 P.M. (EDT), Plaintiffs filed a virtually

identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of California. 

On August 15, 2007, Defendants submitted a “NOTICE OF

REMOVAL OF ACTION” to this Court. As a removal action

applies only to removing an action from a state court to a

federal court, this Court will interpret this request as a

Motion to Transfer the action between federal courts. 

Nevertheless, this Court has no authority to transfer the

Vermont action to California as Defendant requests. 

When related complaints are filed in two federal

district courts, each court has the discretion to transfer,

stay, or dismiss the action. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld

Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). The

first-to-file rule was developed to provide an efficient

resolution to this type of situation. Id. at 625. This

rule counsels that whichever court was the first to receive

a complaint should proceed to hear the case while the other

court should dismiss the action. 

Although the two complaints were filed on the same day,

there is no question that the Vermont complaint was filed

Case 2:07-cv-01210-LEW -KJM Document 13 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

first. Additionally, Defendants fail to supply this Court

with any justification for retaining the action in this

jurisdiction. Indeed, the Vermont action has proceeded

further than the instant action, as Defendants have answered

the Vermont complaint. 

Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion and

DISMISSES the action without prejudice.

Based on the dismissal, Defendants’ Notice of Removal

is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW

 Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

DATED: September 17, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-01210-LEW -KJM Document 13 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 3