`
`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 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 44 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 900
`
`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 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 44 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 901
`
`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-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
