Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the first-to-file rule still applied where the second case excluded a defendant included in the first case
• holding, for purposes of first-to-file rule, two actions are \substantially 7 similar\ where issues presented in second action \substantially overlap\ with issues 8 presented in first action
• finding the parties were 22 substantially similar even though the defendant in one case was 23 not a named party in the other case
• finding the parties were 22 substantially similar even though the defendant in one case was 23 not a named party in the other case
• rejecting argument “that the parties are not 8 substantially similar” where a defendant in the earlier-filed action was not named in the later-filed 9 action
• stating that in evaluating a motion under the first-to-file rule, “a court analyzes three factors[, i.e.,] chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues” and “[o]rdinarily . . . start[s] by analyzing which lawsuit was filed first”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).