`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`SIPCO LLC, and
`IP CO., LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-CV-907-JRG-KNM
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE REGARDING RELATED LITIGATION
`
`Defendants Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLLP, Fisher-
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP,
`FISHER-ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Rosemount Systems, Inc., and Rosemount Inc. (collectively, “Emerson”) file this notice to
`
`apprise the Court of the status of the related litigation pending between Emerson1 and Plaintiffs
`
`SIPCO LLC and IP CO., LLC (collectively, “SIPCO”) pending in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Northern District of Georgia (“the Georgia action”).
`
`SIPCO filed this action eight months after Emerson filed a declaratory judgment action
`
`against SIPCO in the Georgia action. More details about the relationship between the Georgia
`
`action and the present action are provided in Emerson’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer this
`
`Action (Doc. 10) based the First-to-File Rule and, alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the
`
`
`1 Emerson Process Management LLLP is not named as a party in the Georgia action.
`The LLLP entity has two partners – Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. and Rosemount Inc. Thus,
`the inclusion of Emerson Process Management LLLP in this case adds no additional real parties
`in interest to this case.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 44 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`related briefing. That issue is also the subject of Emerson’s related motion to stay the current
`
`action while the motion to dismiss or transfer is resolved. (See Doc. 13).
`
`Emerson provides the present notice to the Court to advise it that, in the Georgia action,
`
`Emerson has filed a motion to enjoin SIPCO from prosecuting this action. (See Exh. 1).
`
`Typically, under the First-to-File Rule, the Court hearing the first-filed action is the one to decide
`
`which case should proceed. See RPost Holding, Inc. v. Trend Micro Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
`
`01065-JRG, Doc. No. 29 at 2-3 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (copy filed as Doc. 10-7). Emerson has now
`
`put the issue of which case should proceed before the first-filed Georgia Court. Emerson
`
`promptly will apprise this Court of any ruling issued by the Georgia court on Emerson’s motion.
`
`Dated: February 18, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__/s/_Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Donald L. Jackson
`James D. Berquist
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile: (571) 765-7200
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Emerson Electric Co.,
`Emerson Process Management LLLP, Fisher-
`Rosemount Systems, Inc., Rosemount Inc., BP
`America, Inc., and BP America Production
`Company.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 44 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 18th day of February, 2016, a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via the Court’s ECF system to all
`
`counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith______________
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`