Generally, “the first-to-file analysis turns primarily on the subject matter of the disputes.” Aurora Bank, FSB v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., 2012 WL 5878197, at *4 (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 2012). Further, “[t]he asserted theories of recovery need not mirror each other so long as the underlying claims arise out of the same improper actions by the defendants.”

O'Hare Int'l Bank v. Lambert, 459 F.2d 328, 331 (10th Cir. 1972) (citation omitted). Aurora Bank, FSB v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., No. 12-CV-02067-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 5878197, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 2012) (citation omitted); see also Swift Distribution, LLC v. Starin Mktg., Inc., No. 16-CV-00893-MSK-STV, 2016 WL 9344072, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2016) ("The purpose of the principle is to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings.").

Intersearch Worldwide, Ltd. v. Intersearch Group, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 949, 959 n. 6 (N.D. Cal.2008) (first-filed rule is satisfied if some of the parties in one matter are also in the other matter, "regardless of whether there are additional unmatched parties in one or both matters"). The third, and probably most significant factor, focuses on whether there is sufficient similarity between the issues presented in the two actions. Aurora Bank, FSB v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co, Case No. 12-cv-02067-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 5878197, at *4 (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 2012) (citation omitted) ("the first-to-file analysis turns primarily on the subject matter of the disputes" and finding first-filed rule did not apply to distinct disputes over different loans involving distinct facts). As noted earlier, both this case and the District of Arizona case concern FWS's fulfillment of its obligations under NEPA and the ESA in developing the revised 10(j) Rule for the Mexican wolf recovery program; the claims in both cases implicate the same rulemaking and environmental process; and the resolution of Plaintiffs' claims in both cases will be based on judicial review of the same extensive Administrative Record.

Docket No. 21 at 7-8. Finally, LBHI asserts that judicial economy would be served by denying transfer because Judge Arguello is currently presiding over a similar case against Universal brought by Aurora Bank, FSB. Docket No. 21 at 8; see Aurora Bank, FSB v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., No. 12-cv-02067-CMA-MJW, 2012 WL 5878197 (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 2012) (denying Universal's motion to transfer case to the Southern District of Florida). None of defendant's arguments, when compared to the Employers Mutual factors, demonstrates that the balance of the factors weighs heavily in Universal's favor. As Judge King later clarified, LBHI was free to refile this claim in a district where venue was appropriate.