Reported / Citable
Background
Texas Precious Metals LLC sued the Texas Bullion Depository and Acting Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock in Travis County state court on February 4, 2026, alleging that the Depository acted beyond its authority. The defendants removed that action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
That same day, the State of Texas, the Depository, and the Comptroller filed this Northern District action. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and cancellation of TPM trademarks under the Lanham Act, alleging TPM had threatened litigation over the Depository’s planned Texas commemorative coins, notes, and promotional items. TPM later amended the Western District complaint to add Lanham Act and trademark claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted TPM’s motion to transfer under the Fifth Circuit’s first-to-file rule. The Western District case was filed first, the parties substantially overlapped, and both suits centered on the Depository’s 2025 announcement and the right to use the shape of Texas and related state symbols on commemorative products.
The court concluded that the issues might substantially overlap even though the initial legal theories differed. It also said the plaintiffs’ claims appeared to be compulsory counterclaims to TPM’s earlier case. The case was transferred to the Western District of Texas before Judge David Ezra, which will determine whether the actions should proceed, be consolidated, stayed, or dismissed. The court did not reach TPM’s alternative dismissal arguments.
Key Takeaways
- A later-filed suit may be transferred when its subject matter substantially overlaps an earlier federal action; identical claims are unnecessary.
- The relevant dispute concerned use of Texas-related symbols on the Depository’s commemorative coins, notes, and promotional items.
- The Northern District left the merits and any disposition of the overlapping actions to the first-filed Western District case.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s preference for allowing the first court with jurisdiction over a common controversy to manage overlapping litigation. Parties cannot avoid transfer merely by framing a related dispute under different theories or by filing a separate action after the first case has been removed to federal court.