United States Court of Appeals
        For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________

            No. 23-2965
    ___________________________

         Austin Michael Beber

                Plaintiff - Appellee

                  v.

        NavSav Holdings, LLC

              Defendant - Appellant
    ___________________________

            No. 23-2966
    ___________________________

             Cody Roach

                Plaintiff - Appellee

                  v.

        NavSav Holdings, LLC

              Defendant - Appellant
    ___________________________

            No. 23-2967
    ___________________________

            Jackie Damon

                Plaintiff - Appellee
                                          v.

                               NavSav Holdings, LLC

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: May 7, 2024
                               Filed: October 1, 2024
                                   ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

       In these three interlocutory appeals, an employer and three former employees
dispute the enforceability of noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants that the
employees signed before resigning. The employer argues that Texas law controls
and that the covenants are enforceable. The employees argue that Nebraska law
controls and that the covenants are unenforceable. Applying Nebraska law in all
three cases, the district court issued antisuit and preliminary injunctions in favor of
the employees. For the reasons we will discuss, we vacate two of the three antisuit
injunctions, affirm the other antisuit injunction, vacate the preliminary injunctions,
dismiss the employer’s request on appeal to enforce the forum-selection clauses, and
remand to the district court with instructions described herein.

                                 I. Background
      In 2022, the Texas insurance company NavSav Holdings, LLC (NavSav)
acquired the Nebraska insurance company Universal Group, Ltd. (Universal). After
the acquisition, NavSav renegotiated employment terms with Universal’s
employees. Employees who chose to stay at the company were required to sign three


                                         -2-
covenants that would apply after their employment ceased: (1) a covenant not to
compete with NavSav, (2) a covenant not to solicit NavSav’s customers, and (3) a
covenant not to solicit NavSav’s employees. The covenants had choice-of-law and
forum-selection clauses, which chose Texas law and selected the state court in
Jefferson County, Texas, where NavSav is headquartered.

       On June 16, 2023, employees Austin Michael Beber, Cody Roach, and Jackie
Damon, who had signed the covenants, resigned from NavSav’s office in Omaha,
Nebraska, and joined the rival insurance company UNICO Group, Inc. (UNICO) in
Lincoln, Nebraska. When Beber, Roach, and Damon switched companies, they took
customers with them. NavSav alleges that the customers are worth about $510,000
in insurance premiums, paid annually.

       Multiple actions soon commenced, both opposing and supporting the
noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants. On June 23, 2023, Beber sued NavSav
in Nebraska state court. Beber sought declaratory and injunctive relief. He argued
that Nebraska law controls and that the covenants are consequently unenforceable.
On June 26, 2023, NavSav sued Beber, Roach, Damon, and UNICO in Texas state
court. NavSav argued that Texas law controls, and it sought injunctive relief and
damages on several claims, including breach of contract, tortious interference, and
misappropriation of trade secrets. On June 30, 2023, Roach sued NavSav in
Nebraska state court. Roach sought declaratory and injunctive relief. He argued that
Nebraska law controls and that the covenants are unenforceable. On July 7, 2023,
Damon sued NavSav in Nebraska state court. Damon sought declaratory and
injunctive relief. She argued that Nebraska law controls and that the covenants are
unenforceable. The Nebraska cases were removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska, and the Texas case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

       The federal district court in Nebraska exercised jurisdiction in the Nebraska
cases. Applying Nebraska law, the court granted antisuit and preliminary injunctions
in Beber’s, Roach’s, and Damon’s favor. The antisuit injunctions forbid NavSav



                                        -3-
from litigating its Texas case, and the preliminary injunctions forbid NavSav from
otherwise trying to enforce its covenants against Beber, Roach, and Damon.

                                   II. Discussion
      On appeal, NavSav argues that the federal district court in Nebraska erred
when it forbade NavSav from litigating its Texas case and from trying to enforce its
covenants against Beber, Roach, and Damon. Having jurisdiction under 

(a)(1) and 1332(a)(1), 1 we review the antisuit and preliminary injunctions
for an abuse of discretion. Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1993) (antisuit injunctions); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc.,

, 114 & n.8 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (preliminary injunctions).

                                  A. Antisuit Injunctions
       In the domestic context,2 a federal district court’s “discretionary power” to
issue an antisuit injunction is “firmly established.” Nw. Airlines, 

.
Indeed, the power of one court to enjoin parties properly before it from pursuing
their claims in other courts traces back to at least the eighteenth century. John
Leubsdorf, The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions, 

, 528–29
(1978). However, this discretionary power has limits. As we explained in Northwest
Airlines, the most important limit on the district court’s power to issue an antisuit
injunction is the “first-filed rule.” 

. Under this rule, the question “is



      1
        For diversity jurisdiction purposes, Beber and Roach are Nebraska citizens,
Damon (who mainly works from home) is an Iowa citizen, and NavSav has dual
citizenship in Texas and Tennessee. See GMAC Com. Credit LLC v. Dillard Dep’t
Stores, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[A]n LLC’s citizenship is that of
its members for diversity jurisdiction purposes . . . .”); R. Doc. 1, at 2 (“[NavSav’s]
members consist of two Texas [LLCs], the respective members of which are
residents of Texas and Tennessee . . . .” (same language in all three records)).
      2
       We do not address foreign antisuit injunctions in this opinion. When there
are dueling suits in domestic and foreign courts, we apply the “conservative
approach” described in Goss International Corp. v. Man Roland Druckmaschinen
Aktiengesellschaft, 

, 359–61 (8th Cir. 2007).

                                          -4-
simply whether, as between two courts both having jurisdiction over the parties and
the subject matter of the dispute, the court in which jurisdiction first attached should
proceed to adjudicate the controversy and should restrain the parties from
proceeding with the later-filed action.” Id. at 1004.

       In rapid succession, the parties here filed dueling actions in Nebraska and
Texas courts. Applying the first-filed rule, we give priority in each case to “the court
in which jurisdiction first attached.” Id. As the name “first-filed rule” implies, the
relevant time of attachment is when the original complaint in each case was filed.
See Fed. Cartridge Co. v. Remington Arms Co., No. 03-6105, 

,
at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 31, 2003) (“Though there is some authority for [the] assertion
that service rather than filing establishes priority under the first-filed rule, most
courts consider the act of filing to be the determinative event.” (collecting authorities
and applying Northwest Airlines)). Removal of a case from state to federal court
does not change when the original complaint was filed. A notice of removal “does
not commence a new case.” Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 

 (9th Cir.
2005). It simply moves an existing case from state to federal court. See Wakaya
Perfection, LLC v. Youngevity Int’l, Inc., 

, 1125–26 (10th Cir. 2018)
(reaching the same conclusion); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Margolis, 

 (9th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision) (same).

       As described above, Beber filed his Nebraska suit against NavSav on June 23,
2023; NavSav filed its Texas suit against Beber, Roach, Damon, and UNICO on
June 26, 2023; Roach filed his Nebraska suit against NavSav on June 30, 2023; and
Damon filed her Nebraska suit against NavSav on July 7, 2023. Under the first-filed
rule, Nebraska is the first-filed forum in Beber’s case, and Texas is the first-filed
forum in Roach’s and Damon’s cases. No party shows “compelling circumstances”
that would except these cases from the first-filed rule. See Nw. Airlines, 989 F.2d at
1006–07 (quoting U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 

,




                                          -5-
488 (8th Cir. 1990)). Therefore, the district court’s antisuit injunctions were proper
in Beber’s case and erroneous in Roach’s and Damon’s cases.3

       When a court is not the first-filed court in a dispute that spans multiple forums,
principles of comity and judicial economy ordinarily require that the later-filed court
defer to the first-filed court’s earlier jurisdiction. See Orthmann v. Apple River
Campground, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1985). Exercising its discretion, a
later-filed court generally has three options: (1) transfer venue to the first-filed court,
(2) stay its own proceedings until litigation in the first-filed court concludes, or (3)
dismiss the claims before it without prejudice. See Commc’ns Test Design, Inc. v.
Contec, LLC, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Chavez v. Dole Food Co., 

 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc); Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 

 (9th Cir. 1997); W. Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Loc. 24, 

 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int’l Corp., 

 (8th Cir. 1999) (noting that a district court in our circuit considered these
same three options); Nw. Airlines, 

 (referring to the same options).

      Of the three options available to a later-filed federal district court in a multi-
forum dispute, dismissal will usually be the least preferred option. See Ritchie Cap.
Mgmt., L.L.C. v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 

 (8th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e
have emphasized a preference for stays over dismissals to preserve any claims that
might not be resolved by the parallel proceedings.”); Int’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of


       3
        We reject NavSav’s suggestion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
enjoin NavSav because the district court is in Nebraska while NavSav is in Texas.
See Appellant’s Br. at 16 (“[T]he District Court does not have jurisdiction to issue
an injunction on the parties in a different venue.”). At least between the parties in a
case (as contrasted with non-parties), longstanding Supreme Court precedent holds
that a district court may exercise its equity powers regardless of the parties’
locations. See, e.g., Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 

 (1952) (“[T]he
District Court in exercising its equity powers may command persons properly before
it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction.”); Massie v. Watts, 

 (1810) (“[T]he principles of equity give a court jurisdiction
wherever the person may be found . . . .”).

                                           -6-
Am. v. Angoff, 

, 1271 (8th Cir. 1995) (“[A] stay rather than a dismissal
is the preferred mode of abstention.”); see also Sandra L. Potter, The First-Filed
‘Rule’ and Moving to Dismiss Duplicative Federal Litigation, 

,
615 (2014) (“[N]one of [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12’s seven enumerated
pre-answer motions directly address[es] dismissal for duplicative litigation per se.”).
Transfer of venue will often be appropriate—and is only possible—when the first-
filed court is another federal district court. See 

(a).4 When the first-
filed court is a state court, a later-filed federal district court may stay its own
proceedings if such a course of action is justified. See Federated Rural Elec. Ins.
Corp. v. Ark. Elec. Coops., 

 (8th Cir. 1995) (discussing the factors
a court should consider, including the relative progress of the dueling suits).

       Because Beber sued NavSav in Nebraska before NavSav sued Beber in Texas,
we affirm the antisuit injunction in Beber’s case. Because NavSav sued Roach and
Damon in Texas before Roach and Damon sued NavSav in Nebraska, we vacate the
antisuit injunctions in Roach’s and Damon’s cases, and we remand. On remand, the
district court shall have discretion to decide whether Roach’s and Damon’s cases
should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, stayed until the Texas litigation concludes, or dismissed without prejudice.
To this end, we instruct the district court to evaluate the status of the Texas litigation,
including any developments that may occur after our remand. See NavSav Holdings,
LLC v. Beber, No. 1:23-CV-00290, 

, at *14 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20,
2024) (denying Beber, Roach, and Damon’s motion to dismiss). 5



      4
        We emphasize that the first-filed court is the court in which the first-filed
case is presently located. Thus, when a first-filed case is removed from state to
federal court, the first-filed court is the federal court that presently has jurisdiction.
First-filed status follows the first-filed case as it moves between domestic courts.
See Wakaya Perfection, 910 F.3d at 1125–26; Margolis, 

.
      5
       Although we apply our own doctrine to the antisuit injunctions issued by the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, we note that the Fifth
Circuit applies similar doctrine when it examines multi-forum disputes that involve

                                           -7-
                              B. Preliminary Injunctions
       In these three cases, the district court also issued preliminary injunctions that
forbid NavSav from trying to enforce the covenants that Beber, Roach, and Damon
signed.6 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right.” Cigna Corp. v. Bricker, 

 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting Winter
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 

 (2008)). “When determining whether
a preliminary injunction should issue,” a court must consider four factors: “‘(1) the
threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm
and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the
probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.’” Ng
v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 

 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting
Dataphase, 

); see also Winter, 

 (same factors).

        “Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law,
typically because its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an award of
damages.” Bricker, 

 (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s,
LLC, 

 (8th Cir. 2009)). “To demonstrate irreparable harm, the
movant must show harm that is certain and great and of such imminence that there
is a clear and present need for equitable relief.” 

 (brackets omitted) (quoting H&R
Block, Inc. v. Block, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 2023)). “Economic loss, on its
own, is not an irreparable [harm] so long as the losses can be recovered.” Wildhawk
Invs., LLC v. Brava I.P., LLC, 

 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting DISH
Network Serv. L.L.C. v. Laducer, 

 (8th Cir. 2013)). “[F]ailure of a
movant to show irreparable harm is an ‘independently sufficient basis upon which



federal district courts in Texas. See, e.g., Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.,

, 602–06 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing the Fifth Circuit’s “first-to-file
rule” and holding that a later-filed court should have transferred a case).
      6
       The district court enjoined NavSav from trying to enforce both its own
covenants and earlier covenants that Beber, Roach, and Damon signed when they
worked for Universal. Here, we address both sets of covenants together. We offer
no opinion on whether NavSav assumed Universal’s covenants in its acquisition.

                                           -8-
to deny a preliminary injunction.’” Padda v. Becerra, 

 (8th Cir.
2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Sessler v. City of Davenport, 

 (8th Cir. 2021)).

        Here, the district court concluded that irreparable harm will occur if NavSav
tries to enforce the noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants against Beber, Roach,
and Damon. In Beber’s and Roach’s cases, the court said:

             The Court does not find that the economic injuries to Beber and
      Roach from loss of income, impairment of their ability to earn a living,
      and the costs of litigation, are “irreparable harms,” because they can be
      recompensed by money damages. Nevertheless, the Court finds that
      [Beber and Roach] have shown irreparable harm sufficient to warrant
      injunctive relief where Nebraska has a clear public policy against
      overbroad restrictive covenants in employment contracts as restraints
      on trade and will not reform them to impose only reasonable
      limitations, and that policy will be irreparably harmed by enforcement
      of the restrictive covenants.

Beber v. NavSav Holdings, LLC, Nos. 8:23-CV-323 & -325, 

, at
*2 (D. Neb. Aug. 22, 2023) (citations omitted and emphasis added).

      Similarly, in Damon’s case, the court said:

             The Court does not find that the economic injuries to Damon
      from loss of income, impairment of her ability to earn a living, and the
      costs of litigation, are “irreparable harms,” because they can be
      recompensed by money damages. Nevertheless, the Court finds that
      Damon has shown irreparable harm sufficient to warrant injunctive
      relief where Nebraska has a clear public policy against overbroad
      restrictive covenants in employment contracts as restraints on trade and
      will not reform them to impose only reasonable limitations, and that
      policy will be irreparably harmed by enforcement of the restrictive
      covenants.

Damon v. NavSav Holdings, LLC, No. 8:23-CV-351, 

, at *2 (D.
Neb. Aug. 25, 2023) (citations omitted and emphasis added).


                                         -9-
       The district court acknowledged that no binding authority supports its
conclusions that harm to a state public policy counts as an irreparable harm.
Nevertheless, it predicted that if such a case ever reached the Nebraska Supreme
Court, that court would so decide. See Beber v. NavSav Holdings, LLC, Nos. 8:23-
CV-323 & -325, 

, at *20 (D. Neb. Aug. 22, 2023) (“Although
[Beber and Roach] have not cited any Nebraska case that has granted a preliminary
injunction on the ground that a restrictive covenant would inflict irreparable harm
because it would violate Nebraska public policy, this Court predicts that the
Nebraska Supreme Court would not hesitate to do so when this aspect of Nebraska
public policy is so well-established.”); Damon v. NavSav Holdings, LLC, No. 8:23-
CV-351, 

, at *21 (D. Neb. Aug. 25, 2023) (“Although Damon has
not cited any Nebraska case that has granted a preliminary injunction on the ground
that a restrictive covenant would inflict irreparable harm because it would violate
Nebraska public policy, this Court predicts that the Nebraska Supreme Court would
not hesitate to do so when this aspect of Nebraska public policy is so well-
established.”).

       We find two errors in the district court’s analysis. First, a federal district court
applies a federal standard, not a state standard, when it decides to grant or refuse a
preliminary injunction. See Schuler v. Adams, 

 (6th Cir. 2022)
(noting that federal courts apply a federal preliminary injunction standard and that
state courts apply their own state standards); Flood v. ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc.,

 (10th Cir. 2010) (Gorsuch, J.) (“[F]ederal law governs the
procedural questions [of] when a preliminary injunction may issue and what
standards of review we apply . . . .”); Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight,
Inc., 

 (3d Cir. 1989) (“Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure contemplates a federal standard as governing requests addressed to
federal courts for preliminary injunctions.” (quoting Sys. Operations, Inc. v. Sci.
Games Dev. Corp., 

, 1141 (3d Cir. 1977))). Although the federal
standard for preliminary injunctive relief often requires a federal court to examine
state law—for example, when the court considers a state-law claim’s likelihood of
success on the merits—the standard itself remains federal. See Winter, 555 U.S. at


                                           -10-
20 (listing a single set of factors that does not vary from state to state); Dataphase,

 (same). Determining whether irreparable harm exists is not a
prediction about what a state court would decide. A federal court “look[s] to federal
law to determine whether a [movant] has made such a showing.” Potlongo v. Herff
Jones, LLC, 

, 537 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished memorandum
opinion). In other words, the existence of irreparable harm is a question of federal
law. 

 “[F]ederal law dictates not only that the movant must show irreparable harm,
but also dictates how that factor is applied—in particular, what a litigant must show
to establish ‘irreparable harm.’ And that is true whether the underlying claim arises
under federal or state law.” Moeschler v. Honkamp Krueger Fin. Servs., Inc., No.
21-CV-0416, 

, at *10 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2021).

       Second, the district court’s orders in these cases misconstrue the meaning of
“irreparable harm” under federal law. The proper inquiry is not whether enforcement
of the covenants would irreparably harm Nebraska public policy. Instead, the issue
is whether enforcement of the covenants would irreparably harm the individual
movants—Beber, Roach, and Damon. When a preliminary injunction is sought, a
federal court must consider “the threat of irreparable harm to the movant,”
Dataphase, 

 (emphasis added), or whether the movant “is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” Winter, 

.
Nebraska was not the movant in these cases. Beber, Roach, and Damon were the
movants. Considering potential harm to Nebraska public policy conflates the
irreparable-harm factor and the public-interest factor. See Winter, 

(identifying these as distinct factors); Dataphase, 

 (same). The
irreparable-harm factor is about the individual interests of each movant. The public-
interest factor is about the good of society as a whole. Both factors are components
of the preliminary injunction test, but they are not interchangeable.

      Once the district court determined that Beber’s, Roach’s, and Damon’s
potential harms were purely economic, compensable by NavSav, and therefore not




                                         -11-
irreparable, 7 the Dataphase or Winter analysis was complete. Preliminary injunctive
relief was foreclosed. See Wildhawk, 

 (holding that purely economic
harms are not irreparable if the movants can recover their losses by money damages).
The court’s consideration of potential harm to Nebraska public policy, in its analysis
of the irreparable-harm factor, was an abuse of discretion. See H&R Block, 

 (“[A] district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on ‘any
clear error on an issue of law that may have affected the ultimate balancing of the
factors considered for a preliminary injunction[.]’” (quoting Hubbard Feeds, Inc. v.
Animal Feed Supplement, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1999))).

      Because no irreparable harm will personally befall Beber, Roach, or Damon,
we do not reach the remaining factors. See Morehouse Enters., LLC v. ATF, 

, 1016–17 (8th Cir. 2023). “The absence of irreparable harm is sufficient
grounds for vacating a preliminary injunction.” Loc. Union No. 884, United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum, & Plastic Workers of Am. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

       But the unavailability of preliminary injunctive relief does not necessarily
forestall all judicial relief. Typically, a former employee who wishes to test the
validity of a covenant, without first violating it and waiting to see what happens,
brings a declaratory judgment action. See, e.g., Miller v. Honkamp Krueger Fin.
Servs., Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 2021). A declaratory judgment is a suitable
remedy for resolving an actual case or controversy between adverse parties, though
irreparable harm is absent. See Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Wallace,

 (1933) (explaining that “allegations of threatened irreparable
injury” are unnecessary in declaratory judgment actions); Douglas Laycock, The
Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule, 

, 722 (1990) (“[A] court
may escape the [irreparable injury] rule by giving a declaratory judgment instead of



      7
      See Beber, 

, at *2 (not finding irreparable harm to Beber
and Roach); Damon, 

, at *2 (not finding irreparable harm to
Damon).

                                        -12-
an injunction.”). If the covenants here are unenforceable under applicable state law,
a declaratory judgment would be an adequate remedy for resolving Beber’s action
against NavSav. See 

(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 & advisory committee’s
notes; see generally Samuel L. Bray, The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment,

 (2014) (explaining that a declaratory judgment is appropriate
when the parties simply need an authoritative and binding declaration of their rights
and duties and “when heightened management of the parties is unnecessary”).

       In Beber’s case, where the district court is the first-filed court, Beber prayed
for declaratory relief. See Beber, 

, at *7 (“In his Complaint,
Beber’s first claim for relief is for [a] declaratory judgment that . . . [NavSav’s]
covenants[] are invalid and unenforceable under Nebraska law, which Beber asserts
applies.”). The court did not address this prayer. On remand, the court retains its
discretion to consider this prayer in the first instance. See Sanzone v. Mercy Health,

 (8th Cir. 2020) (“When a district court fails to address a matter
properly presented to it, we ordinarily remand to give the court an opportunity to
rule in the first instance.” (quoting GEICO Cas. Co. v. Isaacson, 

(8th Cir. 2019))); Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 

 (1995) (“[D]istrict
courts possess discretion in determining whether and when to entertain an action
under the Declaratory Judgment Act . . . .”); see also Alsager v. Dist. Ct. of Polk
Cnty., 

, 1163–64 (8th Cir. 1975) (holding that the “principal criteria”
for granting declaratory relief “are (1) when the judgment will serve a useful purpose
in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue, and (2) when it will terminate
and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the
proceedings” (quoting Edwin Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 299 (2d ed. 1941)));
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Detco Indus., Inc., 

, 998–99 (8th Cir. 2005)
(identifying four additional factors that may be relevant in some cases).8



      8
        Because we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunctions for lack of
irreparable harm and because the district court issued no declaratory judgment, we
do not reach the choice-of-law issues that were briefed. Although we disfavor
“piecemeal appeals,” In re Mun. Stormwater Pond Coordinated Litig., 

,

                                         -13-
                            C. Forum-Selection Clauses
       NavSav further contends that venue is improper and that, pursuant to the
covenants’ forum-selection clauses, the district court should have dismissed all three
cases or else transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. See Appellant’s Br. at 20–21 (citing 

(a)). Motions
seeking the enforcement of contractual forum-selection clauses, such as a motion to
dismiss or a motion to transfer, are not appealable on an interlocutory basis. See
Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser, 

, 496 (1989). Accordingly, we dismiss
this portion of NavSav’s appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Fischer v. First Nat’l
Bank of Omaha, 

, 511–12 (8th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).

                                   III. Conclusion
       For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court abused its
discretion. In Beber’s case (No. 23-2965), we affirm the antisuit injunction, vacate
the preliminary injunction, and remand to the district court, which may consider
Beber’s prayer for declaratory relief in the first instance. In Roach’s and Damon’s
cases (Nos. 23-2966/23-2967), we vacate the antisuit and preliminary injunctions,
and we remand. On remand, the district court shall evaluate the ongoing status of the
Texas litigation and, in the first instance, determine whether transfers of venue,
stays, or dismissals are most appropriate. Finally, we dismiss the forum-selection-
clause portion of NavSav’s appeals for want of jurisdiction.

KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

       I agree that Beber, Roach, and Damon failed to establish irreparable harm
from NavSav’s enforcement of the noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants. As a
result, the employees are not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to the



979 (8th Cir. 2023), any opinion on the choice-of-law issues would be premature
and advisory at this stage, see Doe v. S. Iron R-1 Sch. Dist., 

 (8th
Cir. 2007) (“[O]ur limited jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order granting a
preliminary injunction does not extend to rendering advisory opinions on the merits
of issues that may need to be decided later in the litigation.”).

                                        -14-
restrictive covenants for the reasons stated in Section II.B. However, I would remand
the request for antisuit injunctive relief for the district court to consider in the first
instance.

        Beber, Roach, and Damon sought two forms of preliminary injunctive relief—
to stop NavSav from enforcing the covenants not to compete, and to prohibit NavSav
from “making any further submissions, filings or appearances” in the Texas
litigation. The district court granted both forms of relief after concluding that “all
[Dataphase] factors weigh[ed] in favor of the requested preliminary injunction.” See
Dataphase Sys., 

. However, as this court’s opinion recognizes, the
Dataphase factors do not apply to a request for an antisuit injunction. See Nw.
Airlines, 

 (noting that “orders enjoining a party from proceeding
with a duplicative, second-filed lawsuit in another forum, are not subject to the
Dataphase standards for injunctive relief”). Rather, “[t]he well-established rule is
that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, ‘the first court in which jurisdiction attaches
has priority to consider the case.’” 

 at 1005 (quoting Orthmann, 

).

       Nevertheless, we have explained that “th[e] first-filed rule ‘is not intended to
be rigid, mechanical, or inflexible,’ but is to be applied in a manner best serving the
interests of justice.” 

 (quoting same). The first-filed rule “will not be applied
where a court finds ‘compelling circumstances’ supporting its abrogation.” 

 at
1006 (quoting Goodyear, 

). We lack a record on these issues, and the
district court is better suited to make the factual findings necessary to determine
whether antisuit injunctive relief is warranted.

       Moreover, the procedural posture of the Texas litigation has changed. While
this case was pending in our court, the Eastern District of Texas remanded its case
to Texas state court. See NavSav Holdings, LLC v. Beber, 23-CV-290, 

, at *13 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024). The district court is best suited to
evaluate what effect, if any, this remand has on the first-filed rule analysis. See Smart
v. Sunshine Potato Flakes, L.L.C., 

 (8th Cir. 2002).



                                          -15-
      For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from Section II.A. of the court’s
opinion. I otherwise concur.
                      ______________________________




                                      -16-