Copycat TCPA Class Actions: First-to-File, Transfer, and MDL

Two lawsuits over the same texts, filed weeks apart in different courts, are a common sequel to a publicized campaign. A defendant can ask a court to stay the later case under the first-to-file rule, ask to transfer under the venue statute, or ask the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize the cases. Each works only when the cases overlap enough, and each costs something. The sooner the overlap is documented, the better the odds.

What is the first-to-file rule?

It’s a court-made doctrine that lets a federal court stay a later case in favor of an earlier one. The Ninth Circuit put it this way in Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015): “The first-to-file rule allows a district court to stay proceedings if a similar case with substantially similar issues and parties was previously filed in another district court.”

The court explained in the same opinion that the rule exists for efficiency. It is intended to “serve[ ] the purpose of promoting efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly.” And it described how a court applies it in that decision: “a court analyzes three factors: chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and similarity of the issues.”

The parts of that opinion that matter in a TCPA case are these. First, the parties don’t need to match exactly, because Kohn held that “the first-to-file rule requires only substantial similarity of parties.” In a class action, I’d expect the argument to focus on whether the proposed classes overlap, since the named plaintiffs will always differ. A defendant should put the two class definitions in a chart and show, line by line, which people, which campaigns, and which legal theories appear in both. Judges respond to a chart far more readily than to a paragraph asserting the cases are similar. Second, the court reviews a stay for abuse of discretion, so the trial judge’s view of the overlap largely controls.

Can a defendant move the later case to the first court?

Sometimes, under the transfer statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”

The words “where it might have been brought” limit the choice. The target court must be a place where the plaintiff could have sued in the first place, which depends on personal jurisdiction and venue over the defendant. A California company sued in another state by a consumer there often has no trouble showing that California is a proper venue. A defendant based elsewhere may have a harder time pointing to the first court.

A transfer motion also asks the court to weigh convenience and the interest of justice, which is a broader inquiry than the first-to-file rule. Plaintiffs may answer by pointing to the consumer’s home forum. I’d use both arguments together: the first-to-file rule says the court should defer, and the transfer statute says where the case should go.

What about multidistrict litigation?

When many cases are filed in different districts, 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) allows centralization: “When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” The Panel does this “upon its determination that transfers for such proceedings will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.”

I’d be realistic about this one. Section 1407 requires a determination by the Panel, and a handful of cases against one company may not justify one. It is more likely to be available when a single campaign has produced many suits across the country. The statute also says each transferred action is remanded “at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings” unless it has been terminated, so centralization covers pretrial work, not trial.

What are the risks of fighting over where the case sits?

The motion papers rarely mention these.

First, a stay in one case can leave another moving. If you win a stay in the later case and the first case proceeds on a schedule you can’t control, you may find yourself defending the case you wanted to be in. Second, a transfer motion and a personal-jurisdiction defense need to be coordinated, because arguing that a court is the right place for the case can sit awkwardly beside arguing that it lacks power over you. Third, plaintiffs’ counsel in competing class actions can have an incentive to settle first. A defendant who negotiates with one set of counsel while the other case is pending should think carefully about whether the release will bind the classes in both.

How does timing affect the choice?

Chronology is the first factor, and it is the one you can’t change. The Ninth Circuit’s description in Kohn starts with the “chronology of the lawsuits,” and the court noted that ordinarily it starts “by analyzing which lawsuit was filed first.” If the second case is the one in your preferred court, the rule may work against you. That is why I’d look at the filing dates before drafting anything, and why a defendant in a hurry to respond to the newer complaint can end up asking the wrong court to defer.

Timing also matters inside the case. A transfer or stay motion filed promptly looks like a position taken in good faith. One filed after months of litigation in the second court looks like a reaction to an unfavorable ruling, and judges notice the difference.

What to gather when a second suit arrives

1. Put the complaints side by side and mark the overlap in the class definitions, the campaigns, and the legal theories.
2. Record the filing dates, the service dates, and the names of counsel in each case, and confirm which court has the earlier complaint.
3. Pull the call and text records for the campaign both complaints describe, so you can show the same conduct drives both cases.
4. Confirm where your company can be sued, since a transfer argument depends on it.
5. Hold off on settlement talks in either case until a lawyer has mapped how a release would work across both.

The firm’s page on TCPA defense attorneys in California describes how class actions move through the courts. For related reading, see the earlier post on removing a TCPA case to federal court and on pausing a TCPA lawsuit with a stay motion.

Questions defendants ask about parallel TCPA suits

Does the first-to-file rule always go to the earlier case?

No. The Ninth Circuit treats chronology as one factor among several, and courts have discretion. A judge can decline to apply the rule when the parties or issues differ enough.

Can we ask for a stay and a transfer in the same motion?

Often, yes. The two rest on different authority, and a court can grant one and deny the other. I’d ask for the stay first and the transfer in the alternative.

Does centralizing the cases help the defendant?

It can reduce duplicate discovery and conflicting rulings. It also puts all the plaintiffs’ counsel before one judge, which can strengthen their position. Weigh both before asking the Panel.

What if the first-filed case is in a court we’d rather avoid?

Then the rule can cut against you, and you should know that before you file anything. The first-to-file doctrine favors the earlier complaint, so a defendant that prefers the later court has to argue that the cases differ in parties or issues, or that the transfer statute points elsewhere. That is a harder motion, and sometimes the better course is to answer in the first court and fight on the merits.

Will a settlement in one case end the other?

Only if the release and the class definition in the settled case reach the other plaintiff’s claims. Have counsel compare the two class definitions before you sign anything.

Defending parallel TCPA class actions

If your company has been sued in more than one court over the same calls or texts, how the cases line up will determine which court decides first. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving duplicate class actions over the same texts. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statutes are 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The court decision is Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015).

This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of March 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.