1K1V TGJ Holdings, LLC v. True Gentlemen's Jerky
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-07811
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In 1K1V TGJ Holdings v. True Gentlemen’s Jerky, Judge Martínez granted transfer in part and otherwise denied defendants’ motion.
1K1V TGJ Holdings, LLC, True Gentlemen’s Jerky, and Jess Thomas are affected because the case was transferred from the District of Colorado to the Northern District of California; existing deadlines continue unless that court orders otherwise.
What happened
1K1V TGJ Holdings sued True Gentlemen’s Jerky and Jess Thomas over investments in True, including alleged misrepresentations and breaches involving promissory notes. True had earlier sued 1K1V in California over related financing events.
The defendants asked the Colorado court to transfer, dismiss, or pause the case under the first-filed rule. The court found that the California case was filed first and involved substantially similar parties and overlapping issues.
Judge William J. Martínez granted the motion in part to transfer the case to the Northern District of California and otherwise denied it. The court ordered the clerk to send the file there, while existing deadlines continue unless that court orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- 1K1V TGJ Holdings, LLC v. True Gentlemen's Jerky · No. 3:21-cv-07811
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 4, 2021
Background
1K1V TGJ Holdings, LLC alleged that it invested approximately $3 million in True Gentlemen’s Jerky through a series of stock transactions. It brought twelve claims involving alleged breaches of promissory notes and state-law tort claims, asserting that the defendants misled it about True’s value and improperly induced its investment. One defendant had already been dismissed.
Before 1K1V filed this case, True had sued 1K1V in San Francisco Superior Court. That case was later moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. True’s California case asserted state tort claims alleging that 1K1V interfered with True’s negotiations for a financing agreement with another company.
Motion and Analysis
The defendants asked the Colorado court to dismiss, stay, or transfer this case under the first-filed rule. That rule allows a court to defer to an earlier-filed case in another federal district when the cases involve substantially similar parties and issues. The court considered the timing of the filings, the similarity of the parties, and the similarity of the issues.
The California action was filed on April 12, 2021, several months before 1K1V filed this case on July 6, 2021. The court found substantial similarity between the parties because True and 1K1V were parties to both actions, and Jess Thomas’s involvement in this case was based on his role as True’s chief executive officer.
The court also found substantial similarity between the issues. Although 1K1V argued that the cases involved different transactions, the court concluded that both arose from the parties’ relationship and related transactions. The court found that the cases could involve similar arguments and that facts from one case could affect damages in the other, including through setoffs.
Ruling
Judge William J. Martínez ordered that the defendants’ motion was granted in part to the extent it sought transfer of the case and otherwise denied. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the clerk was ordered to transmit the file. The court stated that any unexpired deadlines would continue unless and until the Northern District of California ordered otherwise. The opinion did not decide the underlying investment, contract, or tort claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.