Craig Ross et al v. The Board of Trustees of California State University

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REOPEN CASE 21 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS) . (lc). Modified on 7/6/2017 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

CRAIG ROSS; NATALIE OPERSTEIN,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

Case № 2:16-cv-03778-ODW-JC

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

MOTION TO REOPEN CASE [21]

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs filed this action as an application for a temporary restraining order on
May 31, 2016, and on June 14, 2016, the Court denied the application. (ECF Nos. 1,
13.) The Order was made without prejudice as to Plaintiffs’ ability to exhaust their
administrative remedies. (Order 5.)

21
22
23
24

Over eleven months later, Plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case and file a
Complaint therein.1 However, on the same day, they filed a new case in the Central
District of California, styled as Craig Ross et al. v. Timothy P. White et al., case
number 2:17-cv-4149.

25
26

Because Plaintiffs’ newly-filed case appears to be based around the same
operative allegations as this case, and because the Defendants in both cases are

27
28

1

After considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deems the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15.

1

substantially the same or identical,2 the Court will not allow Plaintiffs to reopen this

2

case. Plaintiffs cannot have pending before this Court two simultaneous cases with

3

the same allegations and defendants. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Case is

4

DENIED AS MOOT, given that the relief they seek (filing a complaint) has already

5

been obtained in case number 2:17-cv-4149.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

July 6, 2017

9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

In the instant case, Plaintiffs name as a singular defendant the Board of Trustees of California State
University, and in the 2017-filed case, Plaintiffs name as defendants each of the individual members
of the Board of Trustees.

2