Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01140/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 09:0001 U.S. Arbitration Act

---

1

16-CV-1140 JLS (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERGENT TECHS, LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

TRANSATLANTIC LINES, LLC,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-CV-1140 JLS (JLB)

ORDER: (1) ORDERING 

PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED UNDER THE FIRSTTO-FILE RULE, AND

(2) GRANTING IN PART 

PETITIONER’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 6.)

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Amergent Techs, LLC’s Ex Parte 

Application to Extend Filing Deadline for Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Ex Parte App., 

ECF No. 6.) Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition to Compel Arbitration. 

(Petition, ECF No. 1.) 

On June 7, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner either to file a motion to compel 

arbitration or a notice of hearing by July 7, 2016. (See ECF No. 4 at 1–2.) In its Ex Parte 

Application, Petitioner requests an extension of sixty days on the grounds that “a pending 

related case pending between the same parties in the U.S. District Court, Southern District 

of New York,” TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. Amergent Techs, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-03549-AT 

Case 3:16-cv-01140-JLS-JLB Document 7 Filed 07/05/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-CV-1140 JLS (JLB)

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

(S.D.N.Y.), “has the potential to obviate the need for this court to rule on a motion to 

compel Transatlantic to arbitrate.” (Ex Parte App. 1–2, ECF No. 6.) Petitioner notes that 

“[i]f arbitration in New York is compelled by the New York action, petitioner will dismiss 

this case.” (ECF No. 5 at 3.)

It is undisputed that this action was filed on the same day that Respondent 

TransAtlantic Lines, LLC filed a petition to compel arbitration in the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of New York. (See Ex Parte App. 1, ECF No. 6; see also

ECF No. 5 at 2.) It appears from the parties’ filings that the New York action may have 

been filed before this action. (See, e.g., ECF No. 5 at 2.) Principles of comity and sound 

judicial administration permit a court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a case 

involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district. Pacesetter 

Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Church of 

Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 1979); Great N. 

Ry. Co. v. Nat’l R.R. Adjustment Bd., 422 F.2d 1187, 1193 (7th Cir. 1970)). 

The Court therefore ORDERS PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE, within 

fourteen (14) days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed, why this 

Court should not decline jurisdiction under the first-to-file rule and dismiss this action. 

See, e.g., Order to Show Cause, 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Frei, No. C11-6008RSM 

(W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2012), ECF No. 13. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART 

AND DENIES IN PART Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 6) and HEREBY 

STAYS Petitioner’s obligation to file a motion to compel arbitration or notice a hearing 

pursuant to the Court’s June 7, 2016 Order pending resolution of this Court’s jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01140-JLS-JLB Document 7 Filed 07/05/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2