IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-60483-CIV-DAMIAN
IOT INNOVATIONS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUTRON ELECTRONICS CO., INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE [ECF NO. 24]
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant, Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.’s
(“Lutron” or “Defendant”), Motion to Transfer Venue, filed on April 28, 2025. [ECF No. 24
(“Motion”)].
THE COURT has reviewed the Motion, the parties’ briefing [ECF Nos. 41 and 42],
the Notices of Supplemental Authority and the related briefing [ECF Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, and
48], the pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law and is otherwise fully advised.
For the following reasons, this Court finds that the Motion is due to be granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff, IoT Innovations LLC (“IoT” or “Plaintiff”), filed the
Complaint in this action alleging patent infringement against Lutron. [ECF No. 1]. On April
28, 2025, Lutron filed the Motion now before this Court seeking to transfer this case to the
Central District of California under the first-filed rule, or, alternatively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). See generally Mot. In the Motion to Transfer, Lutron indicates that IoT filed a patent
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 1 of 14

infringement case against Lutron in the Central District of California approximately four
months before IoT filed the Complaint in this case in this District. See IoT Innovations LLC v.
Lutron Electronics Co., Inc., No. 2:24-cv-10320-SRM-AS (C.D. Cal.) (the “California Action”).
On May 12, 2025, in lieu of responding to the Motion to Transfer, IoT filed a motion
for leave to conduct expedited venue discovery and for additional time to respond to the
Motion to Transfer. [ECF No. 26]. Thereafter, on June 2, 2025, IoT filed an Amended
Complaint, the operative pleading. [ECF No. 35]. On June 16, 2025, Lutron filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 37].
On July 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge denied IoT’s motion for leave to conduct
expedited venue discovery pending the undersigned’s determination of Lutron’s first-filed
transfer argument within the Motion to Transfer. See ECF No. 40. The Magistrate Judge also
directed IoT to respond to Lutron’s first-filed argument. On August 7, 2025, IoT filed a
Response [ECF No. 41] to the Motion to Transfer, and on August 14, 2025, Lutron filed a
Reply. [ECF No. 42]. Thus, the Motion to Transfer became ripe for adjudication on August
14, 2025.
While the Motion to Transfer was pending before this Court, on November 25, 2025,
the district court in the California Action granted Lutron’s motion to dismiss IoT’s Complaint
in that case with prejudice. See ECF No. 43-1. On November 26, 2025, Lutron filed a Notice
of Supplemental Authority and attached a copy of the Order granting Lutron’s motion and
dismissing IoT’s Complaint in the California Action. [ECF Nos. 43, 43-1]. On December 2,
2025, IoT filed a Response to Lutron’s Notice [ECF No. 44], and, on December 4, 2025, IoT
filed a Notice of Supplement Authority asserting that since the first-filed case was dismissed
and is no longer pending, Lutron’s argument for transfer based on the first-filed rule is moot
[ECF No. 45]. On December 9, 2025, Lutron filed a Reply in support of its Notice addressing
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 2 of 14

IoT’s argument that the first-filed rule no longer applies since the California Action was
dismissed. [ECF No. 46]. And on March 20, 2026, Lutron filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority regarding recent decisions addressing issues raised in the pending Motion to
Dismiss. [ECF No. 48].
This Court now addresses the Motion to Transfer, which is fully briefed and ripe for
adjudication.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. The First-Filed Rule.
“The first-filed rule provides that when parties have instituted competing or parallel
litigation in separate courts, the court initially seized of the controversy should hear the case.”
Collegiate Licensing Co. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71, 78 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus,
“where two actions involving overlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal courts,
there is a strong presumption across the federal circuits that favors the forum of the first-filed
suit under the first-filed rule.” Id. (quoting Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135
(11th Cir. 2005)). The first-filed rule is well established. See, e.g., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co., 920 F.2d 487, 488 (8th Cir. 1990) (describing the first-filed rule as “well-
established”); Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States Dep’t of Defense, 611 F.2d 738, 750
(9th Cir. 1979) (noting that the first-filed rule “should not be disregarded lightly”).
“The ‘first to file’ rule is grounded in principles of comity and sound judicial
administration . . . . ‘The concern manifestly is to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid
rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal
resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.’” Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 3 of 14

F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting West GulfMaritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751
F.2d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 1985)). The first-filed rule “not only determines which court may
decide the merits of substantially similar cases, but also generally establishes which court may
decide 	whether 	the 	second 	filed 	suit 	must 	be 	dismissed, 	stayed, 	or 	transferred 	and
consolidated.” Id. Therefore, the rule was developed because “[c]ompeting lawsuits involving
the same parties and the same issues in separate jurisdictions waste judicial resources and can
lead to conflicting results.” In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1324
(S.D. Fla. 2012) (King, J.).
When evaluating the first-filed rule, the Court must consider three factors: “(1) the
chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the
issues.” Women’s Choice Pharms., LLC v. Rook Pharms., Inc., No. 16-cv-62074, 2016 WL
6600438, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2016) (Bloom, J.); Chapman v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., No.
3:17-cv-102, 2017 WL 3124186, at *1 (N.D. Fla. July 24, 2017). If the court finds that the
first-to-file rule applies, then the party objecting to jurisdiction in the first-filed forum bears
the burden of demonstrating that “compelling circumstances” support an exception to the
rule. Lianne Yao v. Ulta Beauty Inc., No. 18-22213-CIV, 2018 WL 4208324, at *1 (S.D. Fla.
Aug. 8, 2018) (Altonaga, J.). “Compelling circumstances include bad faith negotiations, an
anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.” Belacon Pallet Servs, LLC v. Amerifreight, Inc., No.
15cv191, 2016 WL 8999936, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2016). (citation omitted). If the
presumption holds, then the district court can either stay, dismiss, or transfer the second-filed
case to the forum in which the first-filed action is pending. See Futurewei Tech., Inc. v. Acacia
Research Corp., 737 F.3d 704, 709 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 4 of 14

The first-to-file rule does not require rigid or inflexible application, but rather the rule
should be applied in a manner that best serves the interests of justice. See Philibert v. Ethicon,
Inc., No. 04-81101, 2005 WL 525330, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2005); Carl v. Republic Sec. Bank,
No. 018981CIVHURLEY, 2002 WL 32167730, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2002). Thus,
although the forum where the first-filed case resides is typically given priority, a court may
depart from the rule “when there is a showing that the balance of convenience tips in favor of
the second forum or that there are special circumstances which justify giving priority to the
second action.” Philibert, 2005 WL 525330, at *1 (citing Carl, 2002 WL 32167730, at *3).
The Court has broad discretion in determining whether to stay, dismiss, or transfer
litigation in order to avoid duplicating a proceeding already pending in another federal court.
Glover v. Philip Morris USA, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1285 (M.D. Fla. 2005); see Martin v. Akers
Bioscience, Inc., No. 8:14-CV-2835-VMC-TGW, 2014 WL 7225412, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17,
2014). Relevant here, the dismissal of the first-filed action does not preclude a court from
using its discretion to apply the first-filed rule. See MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC v. Pfizer,
Inc., No. 21-23676-CIV, 2022 WL 17484308, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2022) (Moreno, J.); see
also Abreu v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 21-62122-CIV, 2022 WL 2355541, at *24 (S.D. Fla. June 22,
2022) (Goodman, M.J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 3370932 (Aug. 16, 2022)
(Moreno, J.).
B. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
A district court “may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought” if the transfer would make the litigation more convenient or would
otherwise serve the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d 570,
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 5 of 14

572 (11th Cir. 1989). The Court considers nine factors when assessing whether transfer would
serve the interests of justice:
(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and
the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties;
(4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the
attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a
forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's
choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the
totality of the circumstances.
Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135 n.1.
“[C]ourts have wide discretion to evaluate the interests of justice and convenience on
a case-by-case basis.” Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sysmex America, Inc., No. 17-24049-CIV, 2018
WL 4901407, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2018) (quoting Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135 n.1). This
discretionary decision will not be disturbed absent abuse. Pinson v. Rumsfeld, 192 F. App’x
811, 817 (11th Cir. 2006).
III. 	DISCUSSION
In the Motion, Lutron seeks to transfer this case pursuant to either the first-filed rule
or 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Lutron argues that the first-filed rule applies given the sequencing of the
cases and the substantial similarity of the parties and issues. See generally Mot.
IoT opposes the requested transfer of venue. First, IoT disputes the applicability of the
first-filed rule to this action. IoT argues that the first-filed rule cannot apply because the
California Action was dismissed and is no longer pending. In this regard, IoT takes the
position that dismissal of the earlier filed action precludes this Court from applying the first-
filed rule. Further, IoT argues that even if the first-filed rule applies, the issues raised in the
two actions are not sufficiently similar.
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 6 of 14

As a preliminary matter, upon careful consideration of relevant authorities regarding
the application of the first-filed rule following dismissal of the first-filed action, as well as
review of the issues raised in this action vis-à-vis those raised in the California Action, the
undersigned agrees with Lutron that the dismissal of the first-filed California Action does not
preclude this Court from using its discretion to apply the first-filed rule. See Abreu v. Pfizer, Inc.,
No. 21-62122-CIV, 2022 WL 2355541, at *24 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2022) (Goodman, M.J.)
(holding that, “[d]espite the fact that both earlier-filed Southern District of New York cases
have been dismissed [one with prejudice on the merits and the other voluntarily dismissed],
Defendant has still established the three elements necessary to invoke the first-filed rule” and
granting transfer), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 3370932 (Aug. 16, 2022)
(Moreno, J.); MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 21-23676-CIV, 2022 WL
17484308, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2022) (Moreno, J.) (“Just as in Abreu, the Court holds
that the dismissal of Harris does not preclude the Court from applying the first-filed
doctrine.”); Vyas v. Taglich Bros., Inc., No. 8:22-CV-1515-CEH-JSS, 2023 WL 5938355, at *3
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2023) (“The dismissal of the first-filed action does not preclude a court
from using its discretion to apply the first-filed rule.”). And where, as here, the first-filed action
is pending appeal, district courts frequently apply the first-filed rule. See, e.g., Miccosukee Tribe
of Indians of Fla. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 20-CV-23182-KMW, 2020 WL 9720369, at *3
(S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2020) (Williams, J.) (collecting cases) (“Courts have routinely applied the
first-filed rule when the dismissal of the earlier-filed case is pending on appeal.”); United States
ex rel. Olhausen v. Arriva Med., LLC, No. 21-23916-CIV, 2025 WL 985722, at *1–2 (S.D. Fla.
Apr. 2, 2025) (Scola, J.) (first-filed case remains “pending” where an appeal is ongoing,
because a contrary conclusion would “frustrate” the doctrine and risk parallel actions upon
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 7 of 14

reversal); Molander v. Google LLC, 473 F. Supp. 3d 1013, 1019-1020 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“Courts
often apply the first-to-file rule where, as here, the first-filed case has been dismissed and is
pending on appeal and the appeal may resolve the very questions raised in the later-filed
case.”).
Therefore, this Court concludes that the dismissal of the California Action does not
preclude application of the first-filed rule now.
A. The First-Filed Rule Factors.
After careful consideration of the relevant factors, this Court finds that transfer of this
action to the Central District of California is warranted. Lutron has met its burden to establish
each of the factors entitling it to the “strong presumption . . . that favors the forum of the first-
filed suit under the first-filed rule.” Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135.
Initially, there is no dispute as to the first two elements of the rule — the chronology
of the actions and the similarity of the parties. The California Action was filed in November
2024, approximately four months before IoT filed the instant case in this District in March
2025. Thus, the California Action is the first-filed suit and is therefore entitled to a strong
presumption favoring that forum. See Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135. On the second factor, the
parties in both actions are identical and, in fact, share the same counsel in both actions.1
The question then is whether the issues in this action are sufficiently similar to the
issues in the California action to warrant transfer.
The first-to-file rule does not require that the complaints be “mirror-images” of each
other; instead, “[w]hat is required is a similarity or an overlapping in subject matter.” Marrero
v. Laundress, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00519, 2024 WL 478370, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2024) (citing
1 See Declaration of James C. Yoon in support of the Motion to Transfer [ECF No. 24-1] ¶ 2.
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 8 of 14

Rudolph and Me, Inc. v. Ornament Cent., LLC., No. 8:11-cv-670-T-33EAJ, 2011 WL 3919711,
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2011)); see also Strother v. Hylas Yachts, Inc., No. 12-80283-CV, 2012
WL 4531357, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2012) (explaining that “[a]ll that need be present is that
the two actions involve closely related questions or common subject matter . . . . The cases
need not be identical to be duplicative”); Gratuity Sols. LLC v. Toast, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-737,
2025 WL 1023745, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2025) (same); see also Abreu, 2022 WL 481184, at
*7 (finding that the two actions were substantially similar even though the claims were not
identical because “each action involve[d] the same core of operative facts and will involve
similar, if not identical, questions of law”).
Therefore, when considering whether a later-filed case should be dismissed or
transferred, “[t]he crucial inquiry is one of ‘substantial overlap’” between the cases. Save Power
Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 948 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex,
Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1971)). When the overlap between the two cases is not
complete, the Court will consider factors such as “the extent of the overlap, the likelihood of
conflict, the comparative advantage and interest of each forum in resolving the dispute.” Save
Power, 121 F.3d at 951 (quoting TPM Holdings, Inc. v. Intra-Gold Indus, Inc., 91 F.3d 1, 4 (1st
Cir. 1996)). As a district court in the Eastern District of Texas observed, “[i]n patent cases,
courts determining whether cases were substantially similar have examined whether they
involved the same parties, the same technology, the same inventors, overlapping remedies,
the same witnesses, or overlapping issues in claim construction.” SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec.
Co., No. 6:15-CV-907, 2016 WL 7743496, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2016).
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 9 of 14

In the Motion, Lutron argues that there is substantial overlap in the allegedly
infringing Lutron products and in the underlying technology in both cases. Mot. at 14–15.2
Lutron includes a comparison of the accused products at issue in the Amended Complaint in
this matter and those in the Amended Complaint in the California Action in support of its
argument that there is sufficient similarity and overlapping subject matter that weighs in favor
of transfer. See Mot. at 10–12. In both cases, IoT asserts patent infringement claims against
the same defendant, Lutron, based on technologies in substantially the same allegedly
infringing products. And IoT seeks the same relief in both actions, including injunctive and
monetary relief pursuant to the same statutory authority under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §
284. Lutron argues that beyond their overlapping claim terms, inventors, and assignees, both
patent groups at issue in the two actions concern interrelated technologies for device
communication and information management, resulting in the same, or largely overlapping,
accused products. Notably, in its Response, IoT admits that there will be “overlap in discovery
concerning the technical operation of products that are at issue in both cases [ ] due to overlap
in the products accused of infringement.” Resp. at 4 (emphasis added).
Despite these overwhelming similarities, IoT argues that transfer is not warranted
because there is no overlap in the factual determinations to be made in both cases. According
to IoT, the two actions involve “totally distinct patents and technologies such that there will
be no overlap in factual determinations, claim construction, invalidity arguments, or
infringement claims between the cases.” Resp. at 4. More specifically, IoT asserts that
“[w]hile the patents in this case are directed to network and systems level technologies like IP
packet classification, device registration, signal modulation, and time-critical scheduling, the
2 This Court uses the pagination generated by the electronic CM/ECF database, which
appears in the headers of all court filings.
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 10 of 14

patents in the California Case are directed primarily to device-side behavior and user-
interaction logic, including security for mobile devices, proactive caching, heterogeneous data
synchronization, and other application-equipped devices.” Id. IoT’s argument is therefore
premised on its assertion that the two groups of patents at issue in both actions involve
“distinct technological applications, even if the accused products overlap.” Id. at 14. But such
technicalities are not a basis for finding that the first-filed rule does not apply. Indeed, a review
of relevant authority reflects that many district courts have transferred actions pursuant to the
first-filed rule when presented with lawsuits asserting distinct patents targeting the same
accused products that, like here, would result in overlapping discovery. See, e.g., Aventis
Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., No. 2:06-CV-469, 2007 WL 2823296, *2 (E.D. Tex.
Sept. 27, 2007) (transferring action, based on first-filed principles, with distinct patents
describing distinct inventions but with the same accused products); see also Gratuity Sols., 2025
WL 1023745, at *2 (transferring trade secret action to venue where patent infringement action
was pending because of a “significant overlap in [] discovery”); SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec.
Co., 2016 WL 7743496, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2016) (transfer warranted where actions
“involved the same parties, the same technology, the same inventors, overlapping remedies,
[or] the same witnesses[]”).
This Court finds that there is substantial overlap in subject matter between the two
actions at issue here. See Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135. Furthermore, the touchstone of the first-
filed rule is judicial efficiency. See Gratuity Sols., 2025 WL 1023745, at *2. As Lutron points
out in its Notice of Supplemental Authority, in December 2025, the District Court in the
California Action granted Lutron’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, after which IoT filed a
notice of appeal, which is pending in the Federal Circuit. See IoT Innovations LLC v. Lutron
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 11 of 14

Electronics Co., Inc., No. 26-1297 (Fed. Cir.). In fact, in the Motion to Dismiss pending before
this Court, Lutron seeks a ruling on many of the same legal issues that were raised and ruled
upon in the California Action. See generally ECF No. 37. For example, in the Motion to
Dismiss pending before this Court, Lutron argues that the asserted patents at issue in this case
are patent-ineligible abstract ideas with no inventive concept — an issue which Lutron raised
in its motion to dismiss with respect to the patents at issue in the California Action. In a
thorough patent-by-patent analysis, the district court in the California Action granted
Lutron’s 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	IoT’s 	Complaint 	with 	prejudice 	and 	concluded 	that 	a
representative claim from each asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked any
inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation. See Order Granting Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, No. 24-cv-10320-SRM-AS (C.D.
Cal.) [ECF No. 43-1 at 15–27]. Because every asserted patent was deemed to claim an abstract
idea without an inventive concept, the court held that they were all patent-ineligible. Id.
Although the patents asserted in this case are not identical to the patents in the California
Action, District Judge Serena R. Murillo has extensive familiarity with the parties to this case,
the accused products, the theories of infringement, and prior art references potentially (if not
actually) relevant to the issues in this case. See Aventis, 2007 WL 2823296, at *2.
Therefore, in the interest of judicial efficiency and comity in not having two courts
decide substantially similar issues between the same parties, transfer of the instant second-
filed suit to the Central District of California is warranted.
B. Exceptions To The First-To-File Rule.
As Lutron has established all three factors to support transfer to the Central District of
California, the burden shifts to IoT to establish that “compelling circumstances” warrant an
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 12 of 14

exception to the first-filed rule. Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135 (“[W]e require that the party
objecting to jurisdiction in the first-filed forum carry the burden of proving ‘compelling
circumstances’ to warrant an exception to the first-filed rule.”). “Compelling circumstances
include bad faith negotiations, an anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.” Chaban Wellness
LLC v. Sundesa, LLC, No. 15-CV-21497, 2015 WL 4538804, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2015)
(Cooke, J.) (citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Here, IoT has not proffered any “compelling circumstances” to warrant an exception
to the first-filed rule. While federal courts ordinarily accord deference to a plaintiff’s choice of
forum, this Court does not find IoT’s forum preference to be a “compelling circumstance”
that warrants an exception to the first-filed-rule.3 See Robinson v. Giamarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d
253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996) (“The plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed unless it is
clearly outweighed by other considerations.”).
The first-filed rule is intended to prevent inconsistent judgments, and Lutron’s request
to transfer this case to the Central District of California pursuant to the first-filed rule furthers
that intent in light of Judge Murillo’s dispositive ruling on the merits of Lutron’s motion to
dismiss in the California Action. Because the application of the first-to-file rule is dispositive,
this Court declines to address Lutron’s argument for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
See Women’s Choice, 2016 WL 6600438, at *5.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Because all three factors of the first-filed rule apply and there is an absence of
compelling circumstances warranting a departure from application of this rule, this Court
finds that transfer to the Central District of California is appropriate.
3 Frankly, it is not altogether clear why IoT chose to file this action here.
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 13 of 14

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Motion to Transfer Venue [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED.
2. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.
3. 	The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 37] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendant may re-raise its dismissal arguments before the District Court in the
Central District of California.
4. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case in this District.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida, this 30th
day of March, 2026.
_________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	Counsel of record
Case 0:25-cv-60483-MD Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2026 Page 14 of 14