Opinion ID: 212139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anticipatory Suit

Text: 24 EFI also argues that the district court abused its discretion by finding that EFI's declaratory action was filed in anticipation of Coyle's impending suit, and that such a filing justified dismissal. EFI asserts that the district court inaccurately described the filing of its suit as prompting a race to the courthouse. Coyle responds that the district court properly concluded that EFI's suit was anticipatory because EFI knew that Coyle's suit was imminent. 25 We agree with EFI that the district court abused its discretion in its dismissal order by focusing on the anticipatory nature of the suit. We apply the general rule favoring the forum of the first-filed case, unless considerations of judicial and litigant economy, and the just and effective disposition of disputes, requires otherwise. Genentech, 998 F.2d at 938; see Serco Servs., 51 F.3d. at 1039. Exceptions ... are not rare, but we have explained that [t]here must ... be sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed action. Genentech, 998 F.2d at 937-38. 26 While it is true that a district court may consider whether a party intended to preempt another's infringement suit when ruling on the dismissal of a declaratory action, Serco Servs., 51 F.3d. at 1040, we have endorsed that as merely one factor in the analysis. Other factors include the convenience and availability of witnesses, or absence of jurisdiction over all necessary or desirable parties, or the possibility of consolidation with related litigation, or considerations relating to the real party in interest. Genentech, 998 F.2d at 938. The considerations affecting transfer to or dismissal in favor of another forum do not change simply because the first-filed action is a declaratory action. Id. No such other factors have been cited here. 27 In Genentech, we reversed the district court's dismissal of a declaratory action, as it was premised solely on the fact that the suit was designed to anticipate a later-filed complaint in another forum. Id. On the other hand, in Serco Services, the district court dismissed Serco's declaratory action as anticipatory, but did so in view of other factors, including the location of witnesses and documents. Serco Servs., 51 F.3d at 1039-40. We affirmed the dismissal in Serco Services because the district court did not rely solely on the anticipatory nature of Serco's declaratory action. Id. at 1040. 28 Here, the facts are more similar to those in Genentech and are distinguishable from those in Serco Services. As we have determined that the district court's reliance on EFI's lack of uncertainty in its legal position was erroneous, and no other compelling factors have been cited, the court's decision is left to rest exclusively on the alleged anticipatory nature of EFI's suit. Our precedent, however, favors the first-to-file rule in the absence of circumstances making it unjust or inefficient to permit a first-filed action to proceed to judgment, and, as indicated, no such circumstances have been shown here. 29 The district court's order dismissing EFI's suit as anticipatory and contrary to the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act was thus an abuse of discretion.