The American public places a high value on access to justice and having the opportunity to be heard.  These values can either be upheld or diminished by routine procedural rules.  The first-to-file rule is an example of an innocuous procedural rule that is a barrier to justice.  Under the first-to-file rule, when two parallel suits are filed in different federal district courts, the first-filed suit will proceed, and the second-filed suit will ordinarily be dismissed or transferred to the venue of the other suit.  Transfers often terminate an individual’s case because most people cannot afford to litigate far from home.  By contrast, wealthy corporate litigants are unbothered by transfers.  So, although the first-to-file rule is facially neutral, its application favors sophisticated litigants who can file suit more quickly than unsophisticated litigants.  Nonetheless, in a David versus Goliath situation, courts will not consider the relative size and financial ability of the parties in deciding whether to transfer a case.

Not only is the first-to-file rule biased toward sophisticated, wealthy litigants, it is out of step with other venue-transfer analyses.  When federal district courts hear motions to transfer under the federal change-of-venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404, or motions for forum non conveniens, they can consider the relative means of the parties.  This Article therefore proposes eliminating the first-to-file rule and addressing parallel suits under the federal change-of-venue statute.  This will allow courts to assess the relative financial means of the parties and, where there is a disparity, to prioritize the venue chosen by the party with lower means.