Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Innospec Inc. v. Andrew McBee; Gulf Chemical International Corporation; Petroactive Holdings LLC; and Does 1-20

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-02243

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney

Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02243-CNS-SBP

INNOSPEC INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW MCBEE;

GULF CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;

PETROACTIVE HOLDINGS LLC; and

DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

                    ORDER                                        

Before the Court is fully briefed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of Second-
Filed Action. See, e.g., ECF No. 13. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In denying Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court presumes
familiarity with this case’s factual and procedural background.

The parties’ dispute whether the Court should enjoin prosecution of Defendants’
lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas. Compare ECF No. 13 at 16, with ECF No. 19 at
1. Central to this dispute is whether—and how—the first to file rule should be applied.
Compare ECF No. 13 at 6, with ECF No. 19 at 9. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the
Court concludes that it may consider the first to file rule’s legal framework and its demands
at this procedural stage, and that it may do so prior to addressing any jurisdictional
arguments advanced by Defendants. See, e.g., Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999); ECF No. 19 at 5.

The first to file rule imposes a clear order of operations. First, consistent with both
Fifth Circuit and Tenth Circuit law, the federal district court in which the second lawsuit
was filed determines whether issues in the first and second filed cases “substantially
overlap.” See Crocs, Inc. v. Cheng’s Enters., Inc., No. 06–cv–00605–PAB–KMT, 2015
WL 5547389, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2015) (“Courts confronted with the issue have
suggested that the proper course is for the second filed court to make the initial
determination of whether the two actions substantially overlap.” (citation modified));

Williamson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., Case No. 23–2392–JWB, 2025 WL 2810702, at
*2 (D. Kan. Oct. 3, 2025) (“[T]he ‘first-to-file’ rule permits a district court to decline
jurisdiction where a complaint raising substantially similar issues against the same party
has previously been filed in another district court.” (citation modified)); Cadle, 174 F.3d at
603 (“Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal
courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised
by the cases substantially overlap.” (citation modified)); Landry’s, LLC v. Landry Distilling,
Inc., Civil Action No. 4:23–CV–01314, 2023 WL 3997162, at *4 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2023)
(“As the second-filed court, this Court’s limited role is to determine whether there is
substantial overlap between the two suits.” (citation modified)).

Second, following the second filed district court’s determination as to whether
issues substantially overlap, the first filed district court determines whether the cases
should proceed. See Crocs, 2015 WL 5547389, at *3 (“If a second filed court decides that
[substantial overlap] question in the affirmative, it may stay the case, transfer it to the first
filed court, or, in rare cases, dismiss the case entirely; it then falls to the first filed court to
determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should
proceed.” (citation modified)); Jones v. Kleinman, Civil Action No. 24–00972–BAJ–SDJ, 2025 WL 2582903, at *2 (M.D. La. Sept. 5, 2025) (“Once the likelihood of substantial
overlap between the two suits has been demonstrated, it is no longer up to the second
filed court to resolve the question of whether both should be allowed to proceed.” (citation
modified)).

Adherence to this order of operations is appropriate and warranted in this case.

Thus, once the Texas federal district court—the second filed court—determines whether
these two cases substantially overlap, this Court may proceed in its first to file analysis.
See, e.g., Cadle, 174 F.3d at 603; Crocs, 2015 WL 5547389, at *3; Jones, 2025 WL
2582903, at *2. This is particularly true here, where the parties have briefed the first to
file rule’s application in the later filed case. See, e.g., Gulf Chemical International
Corporation et al v. Innospec Inc., Case No. 4:25–cv–03388 (S.D. Tex.), ECF No. 14 at
2; Gulf Chemical, Case No. 4:25–cv–03388 (S.D. Tex.), ECF No. 16 at 2. Moreover, the
Texas federal district court has taken defendants’ motion in that case under advisement.
See Gulf Chemical, Case No. 4:25–cv–03388 (S.D. Tex.), ECF No. 27. Consistent with
the first to file rule’s operation of operations, and in order to avoid stepping on another

federal district court’s toes, see, e.g., Rasmussen v. Burnett, No. 24–cv–01727–SKC–
KAS, 2025 WL 605250, at *5 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 2025), the Court declines to consider
Plaintiffs’ arguments without guidance from the Texas federal district court and its ruling
on the pending dismissal motion, which may illuminate for this Court the matter of whether
these cases’ issues substantially overlap. See, e.g., Cadle, 174 F.3d at 603; Crocs, 2015
WL 5547389, at *3.

Following the Texas district court’s “substantial overlap” determination, the Court
may address any first to file arguments the parties elect to advance in light of that
determination. See id. And in any event, the Court at this time declines Plaintiffs’ invitation
to enjoin Defendants in this case from proceeding in the second file action. See Quint v.
Vail Resorts, Inc., 89 F.4th 803, 815 (10th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he first-to-file rule is a test for
determining whether a federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction . . . not a

basis for enjoining another court from doing so.” (citation modified)); Ratliff v. Louisiana
State, Civil Action No. 24–2170, 2024 WL 4346513, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2024).
Therefore, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of Second-Filed Action. See, e.g.,
ECF No. 13. The parties shall file a joint status update within fourteen days of the Texas
district court’s order on the motion to dismiss pending in that court, submitting the Texas
district court’s order and setting forth their positions regarding that order’s effect on this
case. Upon review of the parties’ joint status update the Court may, if it deems necessary
based on the parties’ representations, permit Plaintiffs to refile their motion and set an
attendant briefing schedule.

DATED this 25th day of February 2026.
BY THE URT:

                           Charlotte  WSWegney 
                           United Sta    Strict Judee