General Electric Co. v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-10736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In General Electric v. L3Harris, Judge Broderick consolidated related cases and denied L3Harris’s dismissal motion as moot.
General Electric Co. and L3Harris Technologies, Inc.; the order consolidated their two related cases, closed one case administratively, and denied L3Harris’s motion to dismiss as moot.
What happened
General Electric Co. and L3Harris Technologies, Inc. brought two related cases about ownership of Internet Protocol address blocks used in their joint venture. One case was filed in Florida and the other in New York; the Florida case was later transferred to New York.
Because the cases involved the same parties, facts, and central ownership dispute, the court consolidated them for all purposes under one case number. The court also ordered that future filings be made only in the New York case and directed the clerk to administratively close the other case.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied L3Harris’s motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule as moot, without prejudice to refiling or answering the complaint within 14 days after the order was entered.
The detailed version
- General Electric Co. v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10736
- Vernon Broderick
- June 10, 2024
Background
The court addressed two diversity cases involving General Electric Co. (GE) and L3Harris Technologies, Inc. The Florida case, L3Harris Technologies, Inc. v. General Electric Co., was filed in the Middle District of Florida on November 16, 2023, and later transferred to the Southern District of New York. The New York case, General Electric Co. v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc., was filed in that district on December 8, 2023. The cases were assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick and marked as related.
The court described the cases as essentially mirror images. Both concerned the ownership of certain blocks of Internet Protocol addresses originally acquired by L3Harris but temporarily used as part of a joint venture between L3Harris and GE. The court stated that the cases involved the same parties, facts, dispute, and common legal and factual questions.
Consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. Consolidation combines related cases for coordinated handling. The court concluded that consolidation would expedite trial, avoid unnecessary repetition and confusion, conserve judicial resources, and promote efficient resolution.
The court ordered that the Florida and New York cases be consolidated for all purposes and proceed under Case No. 23-CV-10736. It ordered that all filings and submissions be made under that case number only. The clerk was directed to consolidate the cases and administratively close L3Harris Technologies, Inc. v. General Electric Co., No. 24-CV-2671.
Motion to dismiss
L3Harris had moved to dismiss under the first-to-file rule, or alternatively to stay or transfer the case. The court stated that L3Harris conceded that consolidation would make the motion moot because the motion was based on the inefficiency of litigating two separate cases involving the same subject matter.
The court therefore denied L3Harris’s motion as moot, without prejudice to refiling or otherwise answering the complaint no later than 14 days after entry of the order. The clerk was also directed to terminate the motion pending in the New York case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.