CSP Logistics v. K18, Inc.

Background

CSP Logistics, a supplier that distributes hair products in French beauty salons and retail stores, sued K18, Inc. in December 2024. CSP alleged that K18 violated the parties’ distribution agreement by failing to supply CSP with certain K18 products and by supplying K18 products to prohibited retailers.

Two weeks after filing the California case, CSP filed a separate action against K18 in France through a référé procedure. While CSP’s request was pending before the French Commercial Court of Nîmes, K18 moved for an anti-suit injunction. An anti-suit injunction is an order directed at a party, rather than the foreign court, barring the party from pursuing litigation in another country.

Legal standard

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s three-part test for an anti-suit injunction. It first considered whether the parties and issues in the two cases were sufficiently similar and whether the California case could resolve the French case. It then considered whether at least one of four listed factors supported an injunction, including whether the foreign case would frustrate a policy of the California court or the federal court system. Finally, it considered whether the injunction’s effect on respect for the French court and legal system—known as comity—would be tolerable.

Analysis

The court found that the two cases involved the same parties and arose from the same operative facts and claims. Although CSP argued that the French action involved different issues and forms of relief, the court concluded that the requested relief was functionally similar because either court could potentially enjoin K18 from continuing the alleged violations.

The court also found that the agreement’s forum-selection clause covered the disputes. The clause provided that disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement would be submitted exclusively to courts in San Francisco County, California, or to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The court held that allowing the French litigation to continue would undermine the parties’ agreement and California’s policy favoring enforcement of forum-selection clauses. Because the relevant factors are alternative grounds, the court did not decide whether the other listed factors applied.

Finally, the court found that the injunction’s effect on comity was minimal. It characterized the dispute as a private contract dispute between private parties, with no public international-law issue or foreign-government involvement. The court also noted that CSP filed the French case after beginning the California litigation.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted K18’s motion for an anti-suit injunction. The court ordered CSP to stop prosecuting or pursuing the French litigation while this case is pending. It also ordered CSP not to prosecute or pursue similar litigation in another forum seeking relief against K18 based on the same allegations at issue in the California case.