Dore

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------X

TYKEIYA DORE et al., :

: ORDER STAYING CASE

Plaintiffs,

: 25 Civ. 9618 (JPC) (GWG)

-v.-

:

CHRIS BROWN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC. et al,

:

Defendants. :

---------------------------------------------------------------X

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge

On March 11, 2026, the Court ordered plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not

be stayed or dismissed pursuant to the “first-filed” rule, in light of plaintiffs’ pending action

before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“the New Jersey action”).

See Docket # 15. Plaintiffs have responded to this order. See Docket # 17.

Plaintiffs assert that their complaint in this action “contains new evidence that was not

submitted with the complaint in New Jersey.” Docket # 17 at 2. To the extent plaintiffs are

arguing that the first-filed rule should not apply as a result, we reject this argument. “Proper

application of the ‘first-filed’ rule requires that the first and subsequently filed case(s) have either

identical or substantially similar parties and claims.” Wyler-Wittenberg v. MetLife Home

Loans, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 2d 235, 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citation omitted). “[T]he core question

is whether there are common violations of law alleged.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fairbanks Co.,

17 F. Supp. 3d 385, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiffs make no argument that there are not common violations of law alleged in this action

and the New Jersey action.

Plaintiffs also state that they will “request the District Court of New Jersey to transfer the

case.” Docket # 17 at 2. Indeed, the docket sheet in the New Jersey action reflects that

plaintiffs have sought an order transferring that action to the Southern District of New York.

See Docket # 72 in No. 2:24-cv-10103 (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2024). But whether that action is

transferred or not is irrelevant to the question of whether this action should be stayed or

dismissed under the “first-filed” rule.

We thus conclude that this action must be either stayed or dismissed under the “first-

filed” rule.

Which course to take — stay or dismissal — is committed to a district court’s

“discretion.” Adam v. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). We

understand from the docket sheet in the New Jersey action that certain parties have been

dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue. See Docket # 64 in No. 2:24-cv-

10103 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2025). These parties are Songs of Universal, Inc.; Sony Music

Publishing (US) LLC (erroneously named as Sony/ATV Songs LLC); Sony Music

defendants”). In light of this dismissal, it seems appropriate that the suit here should be

permitted to proceed as to these parties (assuming jurisdiction and venue are proper in this

district).

Accordingly, this suit will be stayed until a final judgment is entered in the New Jersey

action and no further appeal is available to plaintiffs to challenge the dismissal of the

jurisdictionally dismissed defendants. Plaintiffs are directed to inform the Court within 14 days

of the date when no further appeal is available.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2026

New York, New York

So 0 Grose

United States Magistrate Judge