Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 1 of 8
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`22-CV-211-SDD-SDJ
`
`PRESS ROBINSON, ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`VERSUS
`
`
`
`KYLE ARDOIN
`
`
`RULING
`
`
`
`
`This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Apply the First-Filed Rule1 by
`
`Edgar Cage, Martha Davis, Davante Lewis, Clee Earnest Lowe, Dorothy Nairne, National
`
`Association for the Advancement of Colored People Louisiana State Conference, Power
`
`Coalition for Equity and Justice, Press Robinson, Ambrose Sims, Edwin Rene Soule, and
`
`Alice Washington, (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). The Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus
`
`filed a Reply2 in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion. The State of Louisiana (the “State” or
`
`“Defendant”) submitted an Opposition.3 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion will
`
`be denied.
`
`I.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On January 24, 2024, Defendant informed the Court that Governor Landry signed
`
`into law Senate Bill 8 (“S.B. 8”) which enacted a new congressional map for Louisiana.4
`
`This congressional map contains two majority-Black districts.5 On January 31st, the case
`
`Callais, et al. v. Landry, was filed in the Western District of Louisiana.6 In Callais, a group
`
`
`
`1 Rec. Doc. 345.
`2 Rec. Doc. 354.
`3 Rec. Doc. 355.
`4 Rec. Doc. 342.
`5 Id. at pp. 1–2.
`6 Rec. Doc. 345-2; Callais, et al. v. Landry, No. 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS (W.D. La).
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 2 of 8
`
`of non-African American Louisiana voters filed suit against the Secretary of State, Nancy
`
`Landry in her official capacity, alleging that in enacting S.B. 8 the State violated (1) the
`
`Equal Protection Clause of
`
`the Fourteenth Amendment by enacting racially
`
`gerrymandered districts and (2) the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by
`
`“intentionally discriminating against voters and abridging their votes based on racial
`
`classifications across the State of Louisiana.”7 These plaintiffs (the “Callais Plaintiffs”)
`
`seek declaratory and injunctive relief.8 Thereafter, on February 5th, Plaintiffs filed the
`
`instant motion asking the Court to apply the First-Filed Rule and assert jurisdiction over
`
`Callais because a controversy exists between the captioned matter and Callais.9 The
`
`Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus filed a Reply in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion and
`
`Defendant followed with its Opposition.10
`
`II.
`
`
`LAW AND ANALYSIS
`
`The First-Filed Rule is “grounded in principles of comity and sound judicial
`
`administration.”11 “The federal courts long have recognized that the principle of comity
`
`requires federal district courts—courts of coordinate jurisdiction and equal rank—to
`
`exercise care to avoid interference with each other's affairs.”12 “The concern manifestly is
`
`to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of
`
`sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.”13
`
`This concern applies where related cases have been filed in different districts. Under this
`
`
`
`7 Rec. Doc. 345-2, p. 5.
`8 Id.
`9 Rec. Doc. 345.
`10 Rec. Docs. 354 and 355.
`11 Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997).
`12 Id (quoting W. Gulf Mar. Ass'n v. ILA Deep Sea Loc. 24, S. Atl. & Gulf Coast Dist. of ILA, AFL-CIO, 751
`F.2d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 1985)).
`13 Id (quoting W. Gulf Mar. Ass'n, 751 F.2d at 729).
`Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 3 of 8
`
`rule “the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by
`
`the cases substantially overlap.”14 The court looks to factors “such as whether ‘the core
`
`issue. . .was the same’ or if ‘much of the proof adduced. . .would likely be identical.’”15 It
`
`is within the Court’s sound discretion whether to apply the First-Filed Rule.16
`
`Plaintiffs request that this Court conduct this “substantial overlap” analysis
`
`because, according to Plaintiffs “where two cases likely overlap, the court in the first case
`
`should assess whether there is substantial overlap between its case and the second case;
`
`if so, it should take over the second case”, relying on Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice,
`
`Inc.17 This argument, however, misconstrues the case law. In Cadle, the Fifth Circuit
`
`explained that this rule is used by the court in the second case to “maximize judicial
`
`economy and minimize embarrassing inconsistencies by prophylactically refusing to hear
`
`a case[,] raising issues that might substantially duplicate those raised by a case pending
`
`in another court.”18 The Circuit continues to explain that the court in the second case is
`
`the court that determines whether a substantial overlap between the two suits exists, only
`
`then is the first court tasked with deciding whether to assert jurisdiction over both suits.19
`
`The Circuit concluded that the court in the second Cadle case “properly limit[ed] its inquiry
`
`to the potential overlap between the two cases.”20 The clear import of the Fifth Circuit’s
`
`
`14 Gateway Mortg. Grp., L.L.C. v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 694 F. App'x 225, 227 (5th Cir. 2017)
`(quoting Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999)).
`15 Id (quoting Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp., 665 F.3d 671, 678 (5th Cir. 2011)).
`16 Waguespack v. Medtronic, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 3d 916, 922 (M.D. La. 2016) (“The Fifth Circuit has ‘long
`advocated that district courts exercise their discretion to avoid duplication of proceedings where related
`claims are being litigated in different districts.’”) (quoting Marks v. Mackey, 2014 WL 3530137, at *2 (W.D.
`La. July 15, 2014)); see also Cadle Co., 174 F.3d at 603 (“The first-to-file rule is a discretionary doctrine. .
`. .”) (citing Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C–O–Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183–84 (1952)).
`17 Rec. Doc. 345-1, pp. 2–3; 174 F.3d 599.
`18 Cadle Co., 174 F.3d at 604 (emphasis added in original).
`19 See id at 605–6 (“Once the likelihood of a substantial overlap between the two suits has been
`demonstrated, it is [sic] no longer up to the second filed court to resolve the question of whether both should
`be allowed to proceed.”) (quoting Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 408 (5th Cir. 1971)).
`20 Id at 606.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 4 of 8
`
`rationale in Cadle requires that Plaintiffs first present the question of substantial similarity
`
`between the two case to the court in the second filed case. In this case, the Plaintiffs
`
`should first ask the Western District Court in Callais to address the comity question, rather
`
`than asking this Court to take the unprecedented step of preempting the Western District
`
`Court from exercising jurisdiction.
`
`Plaintiffs cite InforMD, LLC v. DocRX, Inc. to support their argument that this Court
`
`should act preemptively. But that case does not stand for Plaintiffs’ proposition. In
`
`InforMD, LLC, this Court did not explicitly hold that the court in the first filed case decides
`
`whether two cases substantially overlap. A lawsuit was filed in this Court by InforMD
`
`against DocRx and another defendant. InforMD sought a declaratory judgment, among
`
`other things, as to “the rights and responsibilities” of the parties’ to a 2011 settlement
`
`agreement.21 But the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by agreement of
`
`the parties.22 Subsequently, DocRX filed suit against InforMD and others in the Southern
`
`District of Alabama asserting claims for breach of the 2011 settlement agreement. The
`
`Magistrate Judge of the Southern District of Alabama “directed InforMD to file a motion in
`
`this Court ‘for application of the first-filed rule’ and stayed the proceeding ‘pending a
`
`decision by the Louisiana Court on the forthcoming motion.’”23 Ultimately, this Court
`
`granted a motion to vacate the voluntary dismissal of the case, and then considered
`
`whether this Court should apply the first-filed rule to the litigation.
`
` In InforMD, LLC, the Southern District of Alabama—the second court in this
`
`litigation—directed the parties to seek application of the First-Filed Rule before this Court
`
`
`21 InforMD, LLC v. DocRX, Inc., 2015 WL 13064934, at *1 (M.D. La. Aug. 31, 2015).
`22 Id.
`23 Id.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 5 of 8
`
`took up the matter of substantial similarity. Indeed, in InforMD, LLC this Court cites to the
`
`proper application of the First-Filed Rule discussed in Cadle: “when related cases are
`
`pending before two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse
`
`to hear it if the issues raised by the cases substantially overlap.”24 After Plaintiffs filed the
`
`instant motion in this case, Plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in Callais and to transfer
`
`Callais to this Court. However, the motion to transfer was withdrawn before the Western
`
`District of Louisiana had an opportunity to rule on it.25 In short, the Western District was
`
`not given the opportunity to decline jurisdiction because of substantial similarity with the
`
`captioned matter filed in this Court.26 This Court will not overstep and intervene in another
`
`district court’s decision-making by unilaterally taking over Callais.
`
`Furthermore, even if the First-File Rule found some purchase here, the captioned
`
`matter and Callais do not substantially overlap. The core issue in this case differs from
`
`the core issue in Callais. This case involves a statutory challenge under the Voting Rights
`
`Act (“VRA”) to the now-repealed congressional map, House Bill 1 (“H.B. 1”), whereas
`
`Callais presents constitutional challenges to the newly enacted S.B. 8. While these cases
`
`are somewhat similar in that each involves redistricting concepts and challenge electoral
`
`maps, the legal underpinnings are distinct. In the captioned matter, this Court was tasked
`
`with determining whether the prior congressional map violated § 2 of the VRA under a
`
`results test. This § 2 inquiry does not require Plaintiffs to prove discriminatory intent.
`
`Indeed, in Nairne v. Ardoin, a challenge to the State House and Senate Maps under the
`
`
`24 Id. at *2 (citing Cadle Co., 174 F.3d at 603) (emphasis added).
`25 Rec. Doc. 80 (Electronic Order withdrawing the motion to transfer) of Callais, et al. v. Landry, No. 3:24-
`cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS (W.D. La).
`26 In fact, at the time of the writing of this Ruling, the Western District of Louisiana commenced a bench trial
`on the merits in Callais. Rec. Doc. 173 (Minute Entry of Callais Trial Proceedings) of Callais, et al. v. Landry,
`No. 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS (W.D. La).
`Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 6 of 8
`
`VRA by many of the same plaintiffs in this case, this Court recently explained, “[n]ot
`
`relevant to the Court’s inquiry is whether the Louisiana Legislature intended to dilute the
`
`votes of Black Louisianans. The Court’s § 2 analysis ‘assesses the impact of the
`
`contested structure or practice on minority electoral opportunities on the basis of objective
`
`factors.’ The Legislature’s intent is therefore ‘the wrong question.’”27 Moreover, this Court
`
`declined to address the constitutional question that the defendants attempted to put
`
`before it in Nairne. In its refusal, the Court explained that the racial-gerrymandering
`
`context “is materially different” from the racial vote-dilution context, because “racial
`
`gerrymandering claims require proof of intent.”28 The Callais Plaintiffs have alleged that
`
`Louisiana created gerrymandered districts and “intentionally discriminated” against voters
`
`who are non-African American.29 The Western District confronts constitutional questions
`
`that were not before this Court in the captioned matter. The appointment of the three-
`
`judge panel in Callais pursuant to § 2284 to reach such questions is a stark indicator that
`
`these cases are distinguished.30
`
`Additionally, as to whether the proof would likely be identical, the Callais Plaintiffs’
`
`burden alone shows that the proof will not be identical. The Callais Plaintiffs must set forth
`
`proof of intent to succeed on their gerrymandering claims; this is not an evidentiary
`
`requirement for the Plaintiffs in this case. Moreover, the Plaintiffs in this case challenge
`
`H.B. 1 and the Callais Plaintiffs are challenging S.B. 8. The congressional maps, which
`
`
`27Nairne v. Ardoin, 2024 WL 492688, at *3 (M.D. La. Feb. 8, 2024) (quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S.
`30, 44 (1986)).
`28 Id at *27 (quoting Amicus Brief of Professors Stephanopoulos and Chen at 19, Alexander v. S.C. State
`Conf. of the NAACP, 143 S. Ct. 2456 (2023) (No. 22-807)).
`29 Rec. Doc. 345-2, p. 5.
`30 28 U.S.C § 2284 requires that “[a] district court of three judges shall be convened. . .when an action is
`filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment
`of any statewide legislative body.” 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). The rule also requires that at least one of the three
`judges be a circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1).
`Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 7 of 8
`
`are the core issue in each case and thus the primary subject of any potential evidence,
`
`are different.31
`
`Finally, Callais and the instant case involve different parties which weighs against
`
`a finding of substantial overlap.32 The Callais Plaintiffs are not involved in Robinson nor
`
`Nairne. Only the Louisiana Secretary of State is a party in both matters but this fact is
`
`unpersuasive because as Defendants point out, the Louisiana Secretary of State is likely
`
`to be involved in any election challenges.
`
`In conclusion, because materially different legal questions are presented, the
`
`burden of proof is different, and different parties are involved, the Court finds that the two
`
`cases do not substantially overlap. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to
`
`apply the First-Filed Rule.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Apply the First-Filed Rule33 is
`
`hereby DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`31 But cf. La. Asset Mgmt. Pool v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2020 WL 7861306, at *2–3 (E.D. La. Dec. 31, 2020)
`(finding cases had substantial overlap where three cases arose out of the same conspiracy and the cases
`involved the same alleged violations); cf. Boh Bros. Constr. Co. v. Ca. First Nat'l Bank, 2016 WL 9404906,
`at *3–4 (E.D. La. June 1, 2016) (applying the First-Filed Rule where the case involved “the same contracts,
`same invoices, and same communications between the parties”); cf. Encore Wire Corp. v. Copperweld
`Bimetallics, LLC, 2023 WL 123506, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2023) (finding that the antitrust issue between
`two cases was “essentially identical” so the Court could anticipate that “the same or much of the same proof
`would be introduced” in both cases).
`32 See Scanner Techs. Corp. v. NVIDIA Corp., 2006 WL 844142, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2006) (declining
`to transfer a patent case because the cases involved different claims, different parties, as well as different
`patents and the “overlap. . .[was] not sufficient to show that a transfer [was] warranted pursuant to the
`judicial doctrine of first to file.”); see also TravelPass Grp. LLC v. Caesars Ent. Corp., 2019 WL 4071784,
`at *5–6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2019) (declining to apply the first-filed rule in part because the cases involved
`different types of claimants and claims); but cf. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 2016 WL 9404906, at *2–4 (applying
`first-filed rule where the “two cases [were] functionally identical” and two of the three parties in the second
`action were parties to the first action).
`33 Rec. Doc. 345.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00211-SDD-SDJ Document 370 04/16/24 Page 8 of 8
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on ___ this day, April, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________
`SHELLY D. DICK
`CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16th
`
`S
`
`