Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00827/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00827-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark Infringement

---

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

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Adiba Mahroom, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0827-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The parties to this lawsuit are also involved in an identical lawsuit now pending in the

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As this Court previously found

in an order issued on May 3, 2007, the California litigation was filed before this case, and "all

of the elements of the first-to-file rule are met in this case" [Doc. # 24 at 5]. This Court

deferred to the Northern District of California "to decide the appropriate forum and whether

an exception to the first-to-file rule applies" [Id. at 6]. Since then, that District Court has

found that California is the appropriate forum for this suit and that "there is no evidence that

[Defendants] are forum-shopping" [Doc. # 45, Ex. A at 9]. Accordingly, Defendants now

move this Court to dismiss the present action under the first-to-file rule.

Plaintiff opposes this motion on two grounds. First, Plaintiff contends that the motion

is untimely and should therefore be struck. The Court, however, has already addressed

Defendants' failure to timely file an answer in this case at a status conference held on August

Case 2:07-cv-00827-JAT Document 51 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 The Motion for Attorney's Fees (Doc. # 33) remains pending.

- 2 -

29, 2007, and was satisfied that the case could go forward. The Court, therefore, deems

Defendants' motion to be timely.

Second, Plaintiff opposes this motion on the ground that dismissal will prejudice it in

the pursuit of its claims. However, Plaintiff does not specify, and the Court cannot discern,

how any prejudice could result. Plaintiff has conceded that all of the claims in this litigation

could be brought as counterclaims in the California litigation [Doc. # 24 at 4]. And the

statute of limitations poses no obstacle to Plaintiff's allegations of continuing trademark

violations by Defendants.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 44)

is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.1

DATED this 30th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00827-JAT Document 51 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 2