Finally, when the first-to-file rule applies, courts need not analyze section 1404(a). See e.g., Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. 02-CV-4841 (MJD/JGL), 2003 WL 22050776, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) (declining to consider section 1404(a) because it had already concluded that the matter “should be transferred pursuant to the first-filed rule”); Advanced Physical Therapy, LLC v. Apex Physical Therapy, LLC, No. 17-3149-CV-S-BP, 2017 WL 9717215, at *2 (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017) (same). Nevertheless, the Court observes that each of the section 1404(a) factors likely favor transfer.

But because Arctic Cat has rightly asserted claims against Speed RMG, the interest of judicial economy will be best served by having the case transferred and consolidated with the California action. Applied Underwriters, 2018 WL 441347, at *3 ("in parallel litigation, the second-filed suit can be dismissed, stayed, or transferred and consolidated") (citing Collegiate Licensing Co. v. Am. Cas. Co., 713 F.3d 71, 78 (11th Cir. 2013) and Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 629 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. CIV. 02-4841 MJD/JGL, 2003 WL 22050776, at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) (providing the district court has discretion to transfer the action involving the same parties and issues to the second action in a different district) (citing Orthmann, 765 F.2d at 121; Monsanto Tech. LLC v. Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc., 212 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1102 (E.D. Mo. 2002)). Finally, because the Court determines transferring the matter to California is appropriate, the Court need not and will not reach Speed RMG's arguments regarding lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, standing, and failure to plead with particularity.

Conrad v. Colvin, No. 14-cv336 (DWF/HB), 2015 WL 4094244, *4 (D. Minn. July 5, 2015). See, also, Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. 02-cv-4841 (MJD/JGL), 2003 WL 22050776, *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) ("Pursuant to the first-filed rule, a district court has the discretion to dismiss the later action, . . . or transfer it if an action involving the same parties and issues was earlier-filed in a different district"). The parties have represented to the Court that Cirrus Design is not disputing subject matter or personal jurisdiction in the Nevada case. (Mem. in Supp., [Docket No. 18], 20); see, also, Cirrus Aviation Servs., LLC, No. 2:16-cv-02656-JAD-GWF (D. Nev.).

Conrad v. Colvin, No. 14-cv336 (DWF/HB), 2015 WL 4094244, *4 (D. Minn. July 5, 2015). See, also, Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. 02-cv-4841 (MJD/JGL), 2003 WL 22050776, *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) ("Pursuant to the first-filed rule, a district court has the discretion to dismiss the later action, . . . or transfer it if an action involving the same parties and issues was earlier-filed in a different district"). Defendants clarified at the January 23, 2017, Motion Hearing that, if the Court grants relief under the first-filed rule, Defendants request transfer, not dismissal.

or having been in privity with a party to the Harris litigation. See, e.g., Sparkman Learning Ctr. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 775 F.3d 993, 1000 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that claim splitting is discouraged and that the plaintiffs were required to bring all of their claims against the defendant together, rather than parsing them out to be heard by different courts); Ripplin Shoals Land Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 440 F.3d 1038, 1044 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating that one prerequisite to the application of collateral estoppel is that "the party sought to be estopped was either a party or in privity with a party to the prior action"); Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that "[p]laintiffs may not pursue multiple federal suits against the same party involving the same controversy at the same time" and that "federal courts may decline to exercise their jurisdiction in order to prevent [such] duplicative litigation"); Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. Civ. 02-4841, 2003 WL 22050776, at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) ("Pursuant to the first-filed rule, a district court has the discretion to dismiss the later action, . . . or transfer it if an action involving the same parties and issues was earlier-filed in a different district.") (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999); Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc., 765 F.2d 119, 121 (8th Cir. 1985)). Plaintiff was neither.

Pursuant to this rule, a district court may dismiss a later-filed action or transfer it if an action involving the same parties and issues was filed earlier in a different district. See Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 02-CV-4841 (MJD/JGL), 2003 WL 22050776, at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) and Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc., 765 F.2d 119, 121 (8th Cir. 1985)). The rule, however, is not to be rigidly applied, but rather "is to be applied in a manner best serving the interests of justice," and the "prevailing standard is that in the absence of compelling circumstances, the first-filed rule should apply."

Like the power to transfer a case under § 1404(a), the power to transfer under the first-filed rule is discretionary. See Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. 02-4841, 2003 WL 22050776, at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) (citations omitted). The only grounds cited by Teacher's Outlet in support of its contention that a writ is appropriate is that the "red flags" test set forth in Northwest Airlines should be clarified or overruled.

Pursuant to the first-filed rule, the court has the discretion to dismiss the later-filed action or transfer it to the district in which the same action was earlier-filed action. Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. 02-4841, 2003 WL 22050776, at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Supreme Int'l Corp., 167 F.3d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1999) and Orthmann, 765 F.2d at 121). School Specialty asserts that service of the Complaint establishes priority under the first-filed rule.

Pursuant to the first-filed rule, a court has the discretion to dismiss the later action, or transfer it, if the first action involves the same parties and issues. Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 2003 WL 22050776, at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003) (Davis, J.). The first-filed rule "is not intended to be rigid, mechanical, or inflexible, but is to be applied in a manner best serving the interests of justice.

Most courts consider the filing of an action to be the event that determines priority under the "first to file" rule. See Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co., 673 F.3d 1161, 1163 (10th Cir. 1982); Slidell, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. Civ. 02-4841, 2003 WL 22050776 (D. Minn. Sept. 2, 2003). The Eighth Circuit has yet to directly address this issue.