Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. v. Schanen Investments, LLC et al, No. 3:2010cv00259 - Document 19 (W.D. Ky. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 7/1/2010. For the reasons set forth, 11 and 13 Motions to Stay are DENIED. cc: Counsel (AEP)

Download PDF
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. v. Schanen Investments, LLC et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-259-H BUFFALO WILD WINGS, INC. PLAINTIFF V. SCHANEN INVESTMENTS, LLC, and WRIGHT WING INVESTMENTS, LLC DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants in this trademark infringement action are franchisees of the defendant in a similar action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Defendants here have moved to stay these proceedings pursuant to the first-to-file doctrine. The Court exercises its sound discretion in determining whether the doctrine applies here and, if so, whether equity requires its use. For the reasons stated briefly below, the Court will not apply the doctrine here. First, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the two actions involve identical parties. In fact, the parties are different. The Minnesota defendant is Buffalo Wings & Rings ( BWR ), which is a franchiser of sports-theme restaurants. Defendants here are two of its franchisees. The ownerships do not overlap. In summary, the actions involve different Defendants. The first-to-file doctrine does not apply. Moreover, even if these ownership s interests did overlap, not all of their legal interests do. Plaintiff says that Defendant in the Minnesota action has asserted defenses separate from Dockets.Justia.com those of its franchisees. Plaintiff also says that the Defendants here have engaged in different conduct than BWR. Plaintiff also says that BWR may not be responsible for all of the conduct of its franchisees. Moreover, the separate Kentucky forum may be the only appropriate jurisdiction to pursue Plaintiff s claims against the franchisees. Under these circumstances, it would be unfair to stay and delay Plaintiff s separate proceedings against the franchisees. For all these reasons and being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motions to stay are DENIED. July 1, 2010 cc: Counsel of Record 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.