§Why CasetextPricing

Speedtrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart.Com USA, LLC, et al.

Reply Memorandum re MOTION Enjoin and Dismiss

12 Cited authorities

  1. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.

    515 U.S. 277 (1995)   Cited 4,299 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in declaratory judgment actions, district courts have “greater” discretion to abstain than under Colorado River's “exceptional circumstances” test

  2. Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 336 times
    Holding that "the forum of the first-filed case is favored" and that such deference to the first-filed case may not be set aside absent a "sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed action"

  3. G.C. and K.B. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson

    326 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 211 times
    Discussing the standard

  4. Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp.

    76 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 180 times
    Holding that where legal, and not factual, issues are in dispute, the notice requirement of Rule 65 does not require an oral hearing, and that the court's consideration of legal memoranda may constitute a hearing so long as both parties are "given `ample opportunity to present their respective views of the legal issues involved'"

  5. E. J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A

    446 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 123 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-suit injunction factors were met and reversing and remanding "to the district court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction barring Andina from proceeding with litigation in Ecuador"

  6. Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc.

    909 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appeal of the joinder of two defendants was inextricably intertwined with appeal of an injunction prohibiting suit against the defendants in another jurisdiction because the latter appeal involved factors pertinent to the former

  7. Serco Services Co., L.P. v. Kelley Co., Inc.

    51 F.3d 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 118 times
    Finding district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing first-filed suit because it considered factors additional to whether the plaintiff's suit was anticipatory

  8. American Household Products v. Evans Manufacturing

    139 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (N.D. Ala. 2001)   Cited 7 times

    No. CV 01-BU-385-S. April 4, 2001. Robert J. Veal, Burr Forman, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for plaintiffs. John W. Smith T., Bradley Arant Rose White, Birmingham, AL, Steven L. Krongold, Arter Hadden, Irvine, CA, for defendant. Order BUTTRAM, District Judge. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued contemporaneously with this Order, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Evans Manufacturing, Inc. (Doc. 7) is hereby GRANTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice, rendering

  9. Bergh v. State of Washington

    535 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1976)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing that courts should exercise restraint "in the name of comity" to keep conflicts between courts at a minimum

  10. Xeta, Inc. v. Atex, Inc.

    852 F.2d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 11 times
    Applying 1st Circuit law for a preliminary injunction, the criteria are that "as in other causes of action, the plaintiff must show that there is no adequate remedy at law, that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury absent the requested injunction, that such irreparable injury outweighs the harm an injunction would inflict on the defendant, that the plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the grant of the requested injunction."