MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BAREFOOT SANDERS, Senior United States District Judge

On August 27, 2002 the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying without prejudice Defendant 188 L.L.C.'s ("188's") August 9, 2002 Renewed Motion and Brief to Transfer the present case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In that Order the Court also stayed this case, pending a ruling by the Illinois Court on Trinity Industries ("Trinity's") motion to transfer a related case here. Before the Court is the Parties' Second Joint Report informing this Court that on August 28, 2002 the Illinois Court denied Trinity's motion to transfer.

Upon review of the previous pleadings and briefs, the relevant authorities, and in light of the Parties' Second Joint Report, the Court is of the opinion that the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue should now be GRANTED.

I. Background

This action is preceded by a case filed by 188 against Trinity on December 21, 2000 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 188's case alleges that Trinity breached a contract for repairs of its railroad cars by billing more than the parties had agreed, repairing the cars on an untimely schedule, and scrapping cars at an excessive rate. (Mot. to Dismiss at 2). Trinity filed the present suit against 188 on February 26, 2002 alleging that 188 breached the same contract by not paying Trinity for its work. Trinity also asserts a Texas constitutional lien against 188 for the value of the repairs and materials expended. Trinity subsequently filed a motion in the Illinois Court to transfer 188's related suit to this Court.

On June 13, 2002 this Court denied without prejudice 188's April 18, 2002 Motion to Transfer this case to Illinois. On August 27, 2002 this Court again denied without prejudice 188's Renewed Motion to Transfer and also stayed Trinity's case pending a ruling by the Illinois court on Trinity's motion to transfer. In the same Order the Court left open the possibility that it would reconsider 188's Renewed Motion to Transfer depending on the ruling by the Illinois Court. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed August 27, 2002.

II. Analysis

The first-filed rule "is a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a District Court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a Complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993). In this Circuit, where a party alleges that a case should be transferred to another federal court pursuant to the first-filed rule, the Court must apply a two-part test. First, the Court must determine whether the two pending actions are substantially related and that one Court should decide the subject matter of both actions. Second, the Court must determine which of the two Courts should decide the case. See Texas Instruments, Inc., 815 F. Supp. at 997; see also Superior Savings Ass'n v. Bank of Dallas, 705 F. Supp. 326, 329-30 (N.D. Tex. 1989).

First, the two cases at issue here are clearly substantially related. Courts have noted that a substantial relationship exists between two suits where the issues, though not identical, are similar enough that the cases would be consolidated if filed in the same Court. See Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Finance Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997); Mann Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 408 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1971); Superior Savings, 705 F. Supp. at 329. Both cases involve breach of contract actions regarding the same contract. See Goldstein v. Dickinson, No. Civ. 3:98-CV-1597-D, 1999 WL 47240, *2 (N.D. Tex. 1999) (failing to find a substantial relationship where the two suits involved breaches of different contracts).

Second, in determining whether to transfer this case, this Court is mindful of the Fifth Circuit rule that "the Court in which an action is first-filed is the appropriate Court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed." Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 950. See also Nelson v. Grooms, 307 F.2d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1962) ("Where two actions involving the same Parties and the same issues are pending before two federal courts it has been held that the Court in which the second proceeding is initiated will normally, in the absence of countervailing factors, stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the prior similar suit between the same Parties in the other federal court.")

On August 27, 2002 this Court stayed the current case pending the venue decision of the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois on 188's case. In its Order of August 29, 2002 the Illinois Court denied Trinity's motion to transfer that case to Texas. Therefore, this Court properly reconsiders 188's Motion to Transfer, and finds that a transfer of this case to the Northern District of Illinois is warranted.

After considering the pleadings, briefs, and relevant authorities, and in light of the decision of the Illinois Court, the Court determines that transfer of this case to the Northern District of Illinois would be proper. Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Renewed Motion to Transfer is hereby GRANTED, pursuant to the Court's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Renewed Motion to Transfer is GRANTED. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, for all further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.