Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02581/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02581-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Millennium Laboratories, Inc., a California

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Rocky Mountain Tox, L.L.C., a Colorado

limited liability company, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-02581-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is “Defendants Rocky Mountain Tox, L.L.C. and Slater Laboratories,

Inc. d/b/a Forensic Laboratories’ Motion to Dismiss and Alternatively Motion to Stay

Litigation.” (Doc. 14.) The Court will grant the motion by transferring this case to the

District of Colorado.

Plaintiff Millennium Laboratories provides clinical testing and urine drug screening

to doctors throughout the United States. Defendants (who prefer to be known by their

business name, “Forensic”) are competitors in the same business. Plaintiff Millennium

alleges that it developed a uniquely convenient form for doctors to fill out when ordering a

urine test or the like. Millennium further alleges that Defendant Forensic pirated that form,

changing nothing except the references to Millennium. Millennium filed suit in Maricopa

County Superior Court on November 4, 2010, alleging trade dress infringement under the

Case 2:10-cv-02581-NVW Document 23 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Lanham Act, as well as state-law claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with

business relations, and civil conspiracy. Forensic removed to this Court on November 30,

2010.

Millennium filed a very similar suit against Forensic in Colorado state court on

October 20, 2010, which Forensic removed to the District of Colorado on November 8, 2010.

See Millennium Labs., Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Tox, LLC et al., No. 1:10-cv-02734-MSK (D.

Colo.). Drawing on the same alleged facts described above, the Colorado suit claims trade

dress infringement under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, various Colorado

statutory causes of action, as well as Colorado’s equivalents of unfair competition, tortious

interference with business relations, and civil conspiracy. Discovery has begun in the

Colorado case (including depositions in Colorado) and the parties are apparently working

toward a preliminary injunction hearing.

Forensic has moved to either dismiss this case on comity grounds, transfer it, or stay

it in favor of the Colorado litigation. This Court may transfer a case “[f]or the convenience

of parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Under

§ 1404(a), the district court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an

individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones v. GNC

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Factors this Court may consider include: the state that is most familiar with the governing

law; the plaintiff’s choice of forum; the respective parties’ contacts with the forum; the

contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum; the differences in the

costs of litigation in the two forums; the availability of compulsory process to compel

attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; the ease of access to sources of proof; and the

relevant public policy of the forum state, if any. Id. at 498–99.

Concerning the first of these considerations, Arizona is the state most familiar with

Arizona state-law claims, and Millennium argues that transfer is inappropriate because the

Arizona state-law causes of action differ from their Colorado equivalents. But Millennium

offers no further explanation. Forensic, by contract, submits authority showing that unfair

Case 2:10-cv-02581-NVW Document 23 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

competition, tortious interference with business relations, and civil conspiracy in Arizona are

effectively the same in Colorado. The Court therefore sees no particular difficulty for a

Colorado court to apply Arizona law. In addition, the Court is not aware of any reason why

the District of Colorado cannot adjudicate the Arizona state-law claims under its

supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

The plaintiff’s choice of forum is an important consideration, but somewhat mitigated

here because Millennium has already chosen both Colorado and Arizona as the forum for

nearly identical claims. Thus, the Court sees no reason to give any particular weight to

Millennium’s choice to sue in Arizona.

The respective parties’ contacts with the forum appears to be a wash. Both parties do

business here, but neither party is incorporated or headquartered here.

The contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum similarly

appear to create a wash. The contacts in Arizona, as alleged, are not substantially different

from contacts nationwide.

The difference in the costs of litigation in the two forums again appears to be a wash.

The Court has not been informed, nor is it independently aware, of any substantial cost

difference between Arizona and Colorado litigation, either generally or in the context of this

case. As noted above, both parties are “from out of town.”

Concerning the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling

non-party witnesses and the ease of access to sources of proof, the Court notes Millennium’s

claim that “witnesses related to Forensic’s activities in Arizona will be located in Arizona.”

(Doc. 19 at 6.) However, Millennium does not elaborate, and so far, all witnesses of which

either party has made this Court specifically aware are located outside Arizona. In any event,

proceedings in the District of Colorado would not make access to Arizona witnesses or

documents any less viable. Federal courts have nationwide subpoena power for discovery

purposes, and any testimony from an Arizona witness necessary to a trial in Colorado could

be preserved through deposition (assuming the witness would not agree to come the Colorado

for the trial).

Case 2:10-cv-02581-NVW Document 23 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 5
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

1

Forensic asks this Court to go further and consolidate this action with the related

action in Colorado. This Court has no power to consolidate cases outside the District of

Arizona. Once transfer is complete, however, District of Colorado local rules require

informing Judge Krieger and the transferee judge of the related case, which could result in

consolidation. See D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.5.

- 4 -

Finally, regarding the relevant public policy of the forum state, the Court sees no

Arizona public policy that could not be enforced equally well in Colorado.

Considerations of party economy and judicial economy weigh strongly in favor of

transferring this case to the District of Colorado. This case is duplicative of the Colorado

case. “[W]hen cases involving the same parties and issues have been filed in two different

districts, the second district court” — this Court — “has discretion to transfer, stay, or

dismiss the second case in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.” Cedars-Sinai

Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court recognizes that this is not

a typical “first-to-file” situation. It is not, for instance, a patent infringement case in one

forum vs. a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement in another forum. Nonetheless,

Forensic’s alleged conduct, although affecting multiple jurisdictions, led to substantially the

same alleged injury in both Colorado and Arizona. The conduct in both jurisdictions is

identical. The same principles of federal law govern all the conduct in both jurisdictions.

The governing principles of state law are either identical or well within the competence of

one court to ascertain and adjudicate. Millennium has offered no good reason why the same

alleged facts should be adjudicated through two lawsuits seeking effectively the same relief.

Accordingly, “the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “the interest of justice” weigh

in favor of transferring this case to Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that “Defendants Rocky Mountain Tox, L.L.C. and

Slater Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Forensic Laboratories’ Motion to Dismiss and Alternatively

Motion to Stay Litigation” (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.

Case 2:10-cv-02581-NVW Document 23 Filed 02/01/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk transfer this case to the District of

Colorado.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02581-NVW Document 23 Filed 02/01/11 Page 5 of 5