Juan Pablo Chavez v. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS DUPLICATIVE OF JUAN PABLO CHAVEZ v. BERTELSMANN SE & CO. KGaA, et al., CV 18-375 SJO (FFM), by Judge S. James Otero: (see attached) For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (jm)

JS-6
1
2
3

April 2, 2018

4

VC
P

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
BERTELSMANN SE & CO. KGaA, et )
)
al.,
)
Defendants. )
)

JUAN PABLO CHAVEZ,

No. CV 18-2000 SJO (FFM)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS
DUPLICATIVE OF JUAN PABLO
CHAVEZ v. BERTELSMANN SE & CO.
KGaA, et al., CV 18-375 SJO (FFM)

17
18

On January 16, 2018, plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, filed a complaint (the

19

“Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

20

(Docket No. 2.) Plaintiff alleges numerous violations of federal intellectual property law.

21

(Id.) On February 28, 2018, the presiding judge ordered that the action be transferred on

22

venue grounds to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

23

(Docket No. 3.) The Central District of California received the action on March 9, 2018.

24

(Docket No. 5.)

25

By all appearances, the Complaint is a word-for-word duplicate of the complaint

26

plaintiff filed in Juan Pablo Chavez v. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA, et al., CV 18-375

27

SJO (FFM) (the “375 Action”), on January 16, 2018 in the Central District of California.

28

(See id., Docket No. 1.) “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets

1

and [i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where

2

appropriate, default or dismissal.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d

3

684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds

4

by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 171 L. Ed. 2d 155 (2008).

5

After weighing the equities of the case, a district court may exercise its discretion to

6

dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the

7

previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate

8

both actions. Adams, 487 F.3d at 688; see also Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d

9

221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[A] federal suit may be dismissed for reasons of wise judicial

10

administration . . . whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in

11

another federal court” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

12

Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions “‘involving the

13

same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’”

14

Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)).

15

Where the actions have the same “transactional nucleus of facts,” a judgment in the later-

16

filed action would destroy or impair rights and interest established by the judgment in the

17

first action. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689-91. In addition, judicial economy is not served

18

where there are duplicative suits contemporaneously pending on a district court’s docket.

19

Id. at 692; see Serlin, 3 F.3d at 224.

20

Here, the instant action and the 375 Action are identical in every fashion, from the

21

parties to the alleged facts and legal claims. Furthermore, as they were filed on the same

22

day in different district courts, it appears that plaintiff was attempting a sort of forum-

23

shopping. The Court therefore concludes that dismissal of the instant action, rather than a

24

stay, injunction, or consolidation, is warranted. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 692-94

25

(upholding dismissal of later-filed action where later-filed action involved same operative

26

facts, similar claims, and same defendants, and privities thereof, as first action); Serlin, 3

27

F.3d at 224 (finding that no special factors weighed against dismissal of duplicative later-

28
2

1

filed action; plaintiff’s limitations period concerns resulted from his own failure to follow

2

procedural rules).

3
4

ORDER

5

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice.

6
7
8

DATED: April 2, 2018

9

S. JAMES OTERO
United States District Judge

10
11

Presented by:

12
13
14

FREDERICK F. MUMM
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3