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).

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?