I saw this opinion last week and figured it would make for a nice lighthearted Friday post, but it got bumped to today when I decided to instead post about parties consenting (or not) to hearings and trial in E.D. Tx. So this is now a lighthearted Monday post.
Decades ago, former Chief Judge Robinson was known to occasionally include Princess Bride movie references in her opinions. See, e.g., Adkins v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 95-315-SLR, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17707, at *19 n.5 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 1995) (after a party called offering a more specific amended pleading “inconceivable," suggesting that the party "succumbed to cinematic hyperbole" and citing The Princess Bride); ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., 646 F. Supp. 2d 663, 668 n.14 (D. Del. 2009) (“[T]he expert report characterizes . . . the analysis as ‘conservative,’ bringing to mind a favorite line from the movie ‘Princess Bride,’ changed to fit the context: ‘I don’t think the word ‘conservative’ means what you think it means.’”).
Lately, though, I don't recall a lot of movie references in D. Del. Court opinions. Visiting Judge Wolson brought his A-game in challenging that seeming trend last week, when his opinion dismissing a trademark declaratory judgment action between two golf-related companies cited three separate golf movies:
TGL Golf Holdings, LLC (“TGL”) was the first to file a lawsuit in this trademark dispute, so it has that going for it, “which is nice.”[1] But “there’s no such thing as a sure thing,”[2] and being the first to file, on its own, is not a good enough reason for me to exercise jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action. On the contrary, TGL’s race to the courthouse will prevent it from benefitting from the first-filed rule, and that same conduct weighs in favor of dismissing this lawsuit altogether. So, even though TGL served LA Golf Partners, LLC (“Golf Partners”) with this declaratory judgment action before Golf Partners could file its own infringement action, Golf Partners does not have to “play it as it lies.”[3] I will instead decline to exercise jurisdiction over TGL’s claims in this case and permit Golf Partners to pursue its claims as the natural plaintiff in this dispute.
1 Caddyshack (Warner Brothers, 1980).
2 Tin Cup (Warner Brothers, 1996).
3 Happy Gilmore (Universal Pictures, 1996).
TGL Golf Holdings, LLC v. LA Gold Partners, LLC, C.A. No. 25-011-JDW (D. Del. June 9, 2025).
In this DJ action, the Court found that the DJ plaintiff had rushed to sue in Delaware immediately after the defendant had sent a threatening letter regarding trademark infringement—and, thus, that an exception to the first-filed rule applies:
Rather than wait to be sued in California—where Golf Partners is headquartered—TGL filed suit in this Court three days later, as “a Florida court would likely not have personal jurisdiction over [Golf Partners].” (D.I. 21 at 10.) Given the temporal proximity between TGL’s receipt of the Second Demand and when it filed this lawsuit . . . , there is no question that TGL raced to the courthouse (faster than Happy Gilmore chased a free Subway sandwich) in an effort to avoid litigating on Golf Partners’s home turf. . . .
TGL’s strategic decision to file suit when and where it did has consequences. Because TGL engaged in forum shopping with this anticipatory lawsuit, the first-filed rule does not apply in this case.
Id. at 7-8. After reviewing the other relevant factors, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the DJ action:
TGL raced to this courthouse to prevent Golf Partners from filing suit in its preferred forum in California. But the Declaratory Judgment Act is a vehicle for gaining clarity as to one’s rights amidst indefinite uncertainty—not a strategic device to gain some perceived tactical advantage. Thus, I will decline to exercise jurisdiction over TGL’s claims and dismiss this matter.
Id. at 13. This is a good remind that the first-filed rule is not ironclad. You can win the race to the Courthouse but still find yourself litigating where you don't want to be.
P.S. Later last week, after this opinion and in true D. Del. form—albeit in an E.D. Pa. case—Judge Wolson also included a Princess Bride reference in one of his opinions. See Breitenbach v. SageStream, LLC, C.A. No. 2:24-cv-00893-JDW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110333, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2025) (“He wasn’t even ‘mostly dead.’”) (quoting The Princess Bride (Act III Communications 1987)).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
