The first-to-file rule is a doctrine of comity providing that “where substantially identical actions are proceeding in different courts, the court of the later-filed action should defer to the jurisdiction of the court of the first-filed action by either dismissing, staying, or transferring the later filed suit.”[1]  The two actions need not be identical—only substantially similar.[2]  The first-to-file rule is “not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied,” but is a matter of sound judicial administration and its application is left to the discretion of the trial court.[3]  The purpose of the rule is to promote efficiency and to avoid duplicative litigation, and, thus, it should not be lightly disregarded.[4]

A doctrine of comity “is a principle of courtesy by which the courts of one jurisdiction may give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another jurisdiction out of deference and respect.”[5]  Comity is appropriately invoked according to the sound discretion of the trial court,[6] and may even be raised sua sponte.[7]

When applying the first-to-file rule, courts look to three threshold factors: “(1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties, and (3) the similarity of the issues.”[8]  “[T]he first-to-file rule does not require strict identity of the parties, but rather substantial similarity.”[9] Likewise, the sameness requirement does not mandate that the two actions be identical; it is satisfied if they are sufficiently similar.[10]

 

[1] SAES Getters S.P.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1089 (S.D. Cal. 2002).

[2] Inherent.com v. Martindale–Hubbell, 420 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

[3] Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9^th Cir. 1982) (explaining that declining jurisdiction based on the first-to-file rule is discretionary, not mandatory, with the trial court).

[4] Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prod., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9^th Cir. 1991).

[5] Gonzales–Alpizar v. Griffith, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 2, 317 P.3d 820, 826 (2014) (internal quotation omitted).

[6] Mianecki v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 99 Nev. 93, 97–98, 658 P.2d 422, 424–25 (1983).

[7] See Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 855 (9^th Cir. 1992).

[8] Global Experience Specialists, Inc. v. Cunniffe, 2:14–cv–00421–JCM–NJK, 2014 WL 3748931, at *4 (D. Nev. July 30, 2014) (quoting Nesbit v. Fornaro, 2011 WL 1869917, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2011)).

[9] Id. (quoting Nesbit, 2011 WL 1869917, at *3).

[10] Id.