Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Cambria Company, LLC

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota July 3, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Case No. 24-CV-01075 (JMB/DJF)
Company,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER

Cambria Company, LLC,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cambria Company, LLC’s (Cambria)
Motion to Stay, Dismiss, or Transfer this case to the Central District of California. (Doc.
No. 13.) Cambria seeks to dismiss or to stay the claims against it due to a parallel lawsuit
currently proceeding in the Central District of California. (Id.) In the alternative, Cambria
seeks to transfer venue of the claims against it to the Central District of California. (Id.)
Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia) has filed a similar
motion to transfer the case pending in California to the District of Minnesota. See Motion
to Transfer Case (Doc. No. 17), Cambria Co. LLC v. Phil. Indem. Ins. Co., No. 24-CV-
01913 (MEMF/MRW) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024).
The parties do not dispute, and the Court finds, that the parties and issues in this
case and the California action are substantially similar—if not functionally identical. (See
Doc. No. 14 at 11; Doc. No. 20 at 1–2.) Cambria filed its complaint in the Central District
of California on March 8, 2024 (Case No. 24-CV-01913 Doc. No. 15-1), and Philadelphia

filed its complaint with this Court on March 27, 2024 (Doc. No. 1).
Judicial handling of cases of concurrent jurisdiction is “a matter of federal comity.”
Keymer v. Mgmt. Recruiters Int’l, Inc.,

169 F.3d 501

, 503 n.2 (8th Cir. 1999).  “The well-
established  rule  is  that  in  cases  of  concurrent  jurisdiction,  the  first  court  in  which 
jurisdiction attaches has priority to consider the case.”  United States Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,

920 F.2d 487, 488

 (8th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted).  As 
such,  it  is  the  prerogative  of  the  court  hearing  the  first-filed  case  to  determine  the 
applicability of the first-filed rule.  See, e.g., Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp.,

167 F.3d 417, 419

 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming the decision by the court hearing the first-
filed action to dismiss the case based on exceptions to the first-filed rule, allowing the case 

to proceed in the court hearing the second-filed action); see also Colo. River Water 
Conservation Dist. v. United States,

424 U.S. 800, 817

 (1976) (“[T]he general principle is 
to avoid duplicative litigation.”).                                       
As noted above, Philadelphia filed its complaint with this Court nineteen days after 
Cambria filed the parallel complaint in the Central District of California.  Therefore, the 

Court declines to address Cambria’s motion until the Central District of California rules on 
the pending motion before it.                                             
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,  
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                                
1.   This case is stayed pending the Central District of California’s decision on 
     Philadelphia’s Motion to Transfer;                              
2.   The Motion Hearing set for July 9, 2024, before Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan is 
     cancelled; and                                                  

3.   The parties shall contact the Court by email to chambers within five days of 
     the Central District of California’s decision to request a status conference 
     with the Court.                                                 

Dated:  July 3, 2024                    /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                   Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                   United States District Court