Martindale-Hubbell

Inherent. Com v. Martindale-Hubbell

Good Law
420 F. Supp. 2d 1093·2006 WL 618579·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10790
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 10, 2006C 05-3515 MHPCalifornia4,671 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer

On July 29, 2005 plaintiff Inherent.com (“Inherent”) filed this action in the Superi- or Court of the State of California against defendants Martindale-Hubbell (“Martin-dale”) and Lexis/Nexis, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) alleging breach of contract and fraudulent acquisition of trade secrets. On August 30, 2005 Martindale and LexisNexis removed the action to this court. Now before the court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to the first-to-file rule or, in the alternative, defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the federal district court of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404 . Having considered the arguments presented and for the reasons stated below, the court enters the following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

Martindale and LexisNexis are not legal entities but are divisions of Reed Elsevier, Inc. (“Reed”) which specializes in the provision of various products and services used by the legal profession. Inherent provides internet-related services for professional organizations such as law firms and legal professional associations. See Corcoran Dec. ¶ 3.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.