Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02379/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02379-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERSEPOLIS ENTERPRISE, a Michigan

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a

Delaware corporation; UNITED PARCEL

SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation;

and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a

New York corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-07-02379 SC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO TRANSFER VENUE

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two motions by Defendants United Parcel

Service Inc., a Delaware corporation ("UPS, Inc."), United Parcel

Service, Inc., an Ohio corporation ("UPS Ohio"), and United Parcel

Service, Inc., a New York corporation ("UPS New York")

(collectively "Defendants" or "UPS"). In the first motion, UPS

moves the Court to transfer this case to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. See Mot. to

Transfer Venue, Docket No. 17 ("First Motion"). In the second

motion, UPS moves the Court to dismiss the case without prejudice,

stay the case pending resolution of Barber Auto Sales, Inc. v.

United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 5:06-cv-04686-IPJ (N.D. Ala.)

("Barber Auto"), or to transfer the case to the United States

Case 3:07-cv-02379-SC Document 32 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 7
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

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. See Mot. to

Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay, Docket No. 23 ("Second Motion"). 

Plaintiff Persepolis Enterprise ("Plaintiff" or "Persepolis")

opposed both motions. See Docket Nos. 26 ("First Opposition"), 29

("Second Opposition"). UPS filed a consolidated Reply addressing

both motions. See Reply, Docket No. 31.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES

Defendants' First Motion, GRANTS Defendants' Second Motion, and

ORDERS that this case be transferred to the Northern District of

Alabama.

II. BACKGROUND

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that UPS uses a laser

measuring system to determine the size, and therefore shipping

cost, for each package, and that the measuring system is not

properly calibrated, which causes UPS to overcharge the franchisee

shippers. See Compl., Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 17-24. Based on these

purportedly incorrect charges, Plaintiff brought claims for breach

of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. See id., ¶¶ 31-43. 

Plaintiff is a Michigan corporation and operates a local UPS

franchise. Although Plaintiff's own business is geographically

limited, Plaintiff claims to represent a class of "thousands of

individuals or entities throughout the United States and in many

countries . . . ." Id., ¶ 27. 

None of the Defendants is a California corporation, and all

three have their principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. 

See First Mot., at 2-3. UPS Ohio does business in the Northern

Case 3:07-cv-02379-SC Document 32 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 7
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 3

District of California, but UPS, Inc. and UPS New York do not.

 Id. at 1. UPS, Inc. only conducts business in Atlanta. Id. The

Defendants generally argue that the Northern District of Georgia

is a more convenient forum for this case because they reside

there, the majority of their documentary evidence is there, and

many of the party and non-party witnesses reside in that District. 

See id. at 2, 5-6. 

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on May 2, 2007. 

The Barber Auto plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern District of

Alabama on November 15, 2006, and filed an Amended Complaint on

February 20, 2007. See Second Mot., Exs. A, B. The Barber Auto

plaintiff is not a UPS franchisee, but is a shipper, and claims to

represent a class of similarly situated persons. See id., Ex. B,

¶ 3. UPS, Inc. is the Barber Auto defendant. In that case, the

plaintiff alleges that UPS, Inc. incorrectly measures the size of

packages and subsequently overcharges the shippers. See id., Ex.

B, ¶¶ 8-14. The Barber Auto plaintiff initially alleged claims

for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent suppression, unjust

enrichment, money had and received, and constructive trust. See

id., Ex. A, ¶¶ 22-43. After extensive motion practice, the only

surviving claim is for breach of contract. See id., Ex. B, ¶¶ 23-

27; Barber Auto, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48460, ** 16-17 (N.D. Ala.

June 5, 2007) (granting motion for judgment on the pleadings and

dismissing certain claims with prejudice).

III. DISCUSSION

In the Second Motion, Defendants argue that the Court should

Case 3:07-cv-02379-SC Document 32 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 7
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

transfer this case to the Northern District of Alabama, based on

the "first-to-file" rule. See Second Mot. Persepolis concedes

that its case is similar to Barber Auto, and asks the Court to

transfer this action to Alabama. See Second Opp'n, at 1. Because

both parties agree that the Northern District of Alabama is an

appropriate venue for this action, if the Court orders a transfer,

it will be to that district, rather than the Northern District of

Georgia. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' First Motion.

The first-to-file rule "allows a district court to transfer,

stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already

been filed in another federal court." Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld

Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). Although the

district court has considerable discretion in applying the rule,

it must consider three factors: (1) the chronology of the cases,

(2) the similarity of the parties, and (3) the similarity of the

issues. See id. at 625-26, 628. Persepolis does not dispute that

all three factors are present, or that the first-to-file rule is

applicable here. Thus, the only question for the Court to decide

is which option — transferring to the Northern District of

Alabama, staying the case pending the resolution of Barber Auto,

or dismissing without prejudice — is most appropriate. 

Barber Auto was filed approximately six months before

Persepolis filed this suit. The first factor therefore weighs in

favor of applying the first-to-file rule, but does not favor any

of the choices the rule offers.

The second factor favors transfer. The first-to-file rule

requires the court in a class action suit to compare the proposed

Case 3:07-cv-02379-SC Document 32 Filed 09/07/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

classes, not their representatives. See Weinstein v. MetLife,

Inc., No. 06-cv-04444-SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83115, *12 (N.D.

Cal. Nov. 6, 2006). The class that the Barber Auto plaintiffs

seek to represent includes all "persons and/or entities in the

United States who have paid defendant any sums of money for

increased shipping charge corrections the defendant assessed

against them based on the subsequent auditing of the dimensional

size of these persons' and/or entities' packages." Second Mot.,

Ex. B, ¶ 15(a). Persepolis brought this suit on behalf of a class

of all "entities worldwide that operate franchises under the UPS

store or Mail Box Etc. brands, or entities who are '6 digit'

account customers with UPS, and who have received an upward

adjustment from UPS based on UPS' remeasurement of a package." 

Compl., ¶ 25. The class Persepolis represents here is not limited

to the United States, and the class in Barber Auto is not limited

to franchisees. Thus, although Persepolis and some other members

of its class may also be included in the Barber Auto class, there

is not complete identity. The Defendants are also similar, but

not identical, as UPS Ohio and UPS New York are named here, but

not in Barber Auto. However, as UPS notes, UPS, Inc. is the

parent company of both UPS Ohio and UPS New York. Second Mot., at

6. Were there complete identity of parties, the Court might be

willing to stay this action or dismiss it without prejudice, as

Defendants request. Given that the extent of the overlap is

unclear, Plaintiff's rights are best preserved by transferring the

case to the Northern District of Alabama, where the court that

already has a deep familiarity with the facts of Barber Auto is in

Case 3:07-cv-02379-SC Document 32 Filed 09/07/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

a better position to determine whether the two cases should

proceed separately.

For the same reasons, the third factor also favors

transferring rather than dismissing or staying this case. 

Although both cases involve claims for breach of contract, the

precise contract terms in each may differ. Further, Persepolis

alleges that Defendants measure the dimensions of packages

incorrectly because they rely on an improperly calibrated laser

measurement system, and that Defendants knew or should have known

the system was inaccurate. These allegations do not appear in the

Barber Auto complaints, and may be sufficient to support

Persepolis's non-contract claims. 

The Court agrees with both parties that the first-to-file

rule is applicable here. For the foregoing reasons, the Court

finds that judicial efficiency and the interests of the parties

will be best served by transferring this action to the Northern

District of Alabama rather than staying or dismissing it.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained herein, the Court hereby DENIES

Defendants' motion to transfer this case to the Northern District

of Georgia, and GRANTS Defendants' motion to transfer this case to

the Northern District of Alabama. The Court therefore ORDERS the

TRANSFER of this case to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama. The Clerk of the Court shall 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-02379-SC Document 32 Filed 09/07/07 Page 6 of 7
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 7

transfer the file forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2007

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02379-SC Document 32 Filed 09/07/07 Page 7 of 7