Judge J. Paul Oetken
EQD’s 2010 “failure dispute” arose from failure to pay $163,646 on a $1.3 million contract to buy televisions from EA Display. Its 2011 “delivery dispute” involved allegations that EA Display and others were liable for damage to sets bought for delivery to its customers. EQD’s 2011 complaint in California’s Central District alleged liability against EA Display, Eternal Asia, and others as to the delivery dispute. Default judgment was entered against Eternal Asia, whose second motion to set aside default was denied in August. However, EQD was denied default judgment because others had answered to defend suit. Invoking the first-to-file doctrine and asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, EQD sought dismissal of Eternal Asia’s Southern District action seeking damages based on claims on EQD’s failure dispute balance. The court granted EQD dismissal without prejudice to Eternal Asia’s right to assert its claims in the Central District of California. In finding the first-to-file doctrine applicable, the court found the issues in the California and New York cases, and their parties, substantially similar. Also, it would be duplicative and burdensome for two courts to address the parties’ liability for the $163,646 at issue in the failure dispute.
