Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05491/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05491-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT L. MARINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMUEL CABOT INCORPORATED EMPLOYEES’

STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, formerly known

as SAMUEL CABOT INCORPORATED

EMPLOYEES’ STOCK OWNERSHIP AND

SAVINGS PLAN; SAMUEL CABOT

INCORPORATED, a Massachusetts

corporation, as sponsor and as

administrator of the Samuel Cabot

Incorporated Employees’ Stock 

Ownership Plan; SAMUEL CABOT III,

individually and as former trustee of

the Samuel Cabot Incorporated

Employees’ Stock Ownership Plan;

WILLIAM F. McGONIGLE, JR.,

individually and as trustee of the

Samuel Cabot Incorporated Employees’

Stock Ownership Plan; THE VALSPAR

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

as administrator of the Samuel Cabot

Incorporated Employees’ Stock

Ownership Plan; CHRISTOPHER CABOT,

individually and as fiduciary of the

Samuel Cabot Incorporated Employees’

Stock Ownership Plan; SULLIVAN &

WORCESTER LLP, a limited liability

partnership,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-5491 CW

ORDER DENYING

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

OR TRANSFER

Case 4:06-cv-05491-CW Document 17 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

1Defendants argue, and Marini does not dispute, that the

additional claims that Marini brings in this Court either relate to

the actual sale of his stock or to the suit in the Massachusetts

district court.

2

Defendants move for dismissal of this action pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). In the

alternative, Defendants move under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer

the action to the District of Massachusetts, where Defendants

previously filed a related action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff

opposes the motion. Having considered the parties' papers, the

Court denies without prejudice Defendants' motion to dismiss or

transfer the action.

The well-established first-to-file rule provides that “where

substantially identical actions are proceeding in different courts,

the court of the later-filed action should defer to the court of

the jurisdiction of the first-filed action by either dismissing,

staying, or transferring the later-filed suit.” SAES Getters

S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1089 (S.D. Cal.

2002). 

It is undisputed that Defendants filed their original

complaint in the Massachusetts district court on August 16, 2006,

three weeks before Marini filed his complaint in this Court. It is

also undisputed that the Massachusetts action and this action

involve the same parties and the same subject matter, the sale of

Marini's stock upon his retirement from the Company.1

Marini argues that the first-to-file rule does not apply to

this case because he alleges "Defendants have demonstrated bad 

Case 4:06-cv-05491-CW Document 17 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

The Court GRANTS Defendants' request for judicial notice 

(Docket No. 8). 

3

faith by imposing unnecessary additional costs on Marini. They

have filed an anticipatory suit. And they have maneuvered in hopes

of avoiding this forum." Opposition at 15. Defendants counter

that, in addition to the first-to-file rule, all of the factors

underlying the decision to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a) warrant transfer of the case to Massachusetts. 

Even if the first-to-file rule should not be applied in this

case because the first-filed suit was anticipatory and filed in bad

faith for forum-shopping purposes, those arguments should be

addressed to the court in the first-filed action. Alltrade Inc. v.

Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991);

Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 96 (9th Cir.

1982). Therefore, the Court defers to the Massachusetts district

court to decide the appropriate forum. Because Marini has already

filed a motion to transfer the Massachusetts action, this Court

DENIES without prejudice Defendants' motion (Docket No. 4), pending

the Massachusetts district court's ruling on Marini's motion to

transfer.2

The parties are instructed to notify the Court promptly upon

entry of an order in the pending action in the Massachusetts

district court. If the Massachusetts district court grants

Marini's motion to transfer the first-filed action, the actions

will be related and consolidated and Defendants may renotice their

motion to dismiss if there remain grounds to do so. If the

Massachusetts district court denies Marini's motion to transfer, 

Case 4:06-cv-05491-CW Document 17 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 4

Defendants may renotice their motion to dismiss and the Court will

either dismiss this action, stay it, or transfer it to the

Massachusetts district court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/31/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05491-CW Document 17 Filed 11/01/06 Page 4 of 4