Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02060/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02060-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ArmorWorks Enterprises, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

BAE Systems AH, Inc., a Delaware

corporation; BAE Systems Mobility &

Protection Systems, Inc., a Delaware

corporation; BAE Systems Aerospace &

Defense Group, Inc., an Arizona

corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-02060-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Defendants BAE Systems AH, Inc., BAE Systems Mobility & Protection Systems,

Inc., and BAE Systems Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc. (collectively, “BAE”) move to

either dismiss or stay the present action on the grounds that it is duplicative of an earlier filed

action pending in this district. We have before us defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the

alternative, motion to stay (doc. 8), plaintiff ArmorWorks Enterprises, LLC’s

(“ArmorWorks”) response (doc. 19), and defendants’ reply (doc. 20). We also have before

us defendants’ motion to stay deadline for responsive pleadings (doc. 9) and plaintiff’s

response (doc. 18). 

Both parties manufacture and sell tactical body armor. This action involves a contract

between plaintiff and one of its suppliers. On November 6, 2008, plaintiff filed this action

Case 2:08-cv-02060-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/27/09 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

27

28

- 2 -

for (1) violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(f); (2) tortious interference

with contract; (3) tortious interference with business expectancy; and (4) aiding and abetting

fraud. On September 15, 2008, before plaintiff brought this action, defendants had filed a

declaratory judgment action against plaintiff involving the same legal issues. BAE Sys.

Mobility & Prot. Sys., Inc. v. ArmorWorks Enters., LLC, No. 2:08-CV-01697-PHX-JAT (D.

Ariz. Sept. 15, 2008). Indeed, the cases are mirror images of each other. Defendants’ motion

to consolidate their earlier filed declaratory judgment action with the present action (doc. 7),

is pending before Judge Teilborg, who has been assigned the lower case number, and oral

argument has been set for April 20, 2009. See BAE, No. 2:08-CV-01697-PHX-JAT (doc.

32). Defendants move to dismiss or to stay plaintiff’s action here on principles of judicial

comity.

It is plain that neither the parties nor the system need two actions. It is a pity that the

parties cannot resolve consolidation and either joinder or dismissal by stipulation. Their

attachment of unwarranted importance to the labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” is getting in

their way, and is contrary to Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., which admonishes that the Rules should

be administered to secure the speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. 

Judge Teilborg will decide the motion to consolidate and likely grant it. He can then

decide the fair alignment of the parties and select whichever action best reflects reality. It

thus makes sense for us to deny the motion to dismiss or to stay to ensure he has that

opportunity. Of course, this is without prejudice to defendants’ right to raise the contentions

made here in connection with the motion to consolidate. 

Because defendants’ motion to dismiss was not raised under Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ.

P., they have filed an unopposed motion to stay the deadline for responsive pleadings while

their motion was pending. We will grant defendants’ motion and order that a responsive

pleading be filed within 10 days of this order pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 2:08-cv-02060-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/27/09 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

27

28

- 3 -

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 8). IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to stay the deadline for

responsive pleadings (doc. 9) and ordering defendants to file a responsive pleading within

10 days of this order. 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02060-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 3