Rupisan v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION as DUPLICATIVE of Case No. 1:12-cv-00327 AWI-GSA, Julita Rupisan, et al, v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al; CLERK TO CLOSE CASE, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/27/2012. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JULITA RUPISAN, et al.,

12

CASE NO.

1:12-CV-00768-LJO-MJS

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS
DUPLICATIVE

Plaintiffs,

13
v.

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

14
15
16

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

17
/

18
19
20

On March 2, 2012, Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., California

21
22

Reconveyance Company, and Deutsche Bank National Trust (“Removing Defendants”)

23

removed this matter from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of

24

Stanislaus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

25

(Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.)

26
27
-1-

1
2
3

Removal documents were filed in both the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California-Sacramento Division and the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California-Fresno Division, which following transfer from the

4
5

Sacramento Division resulted in this matter being assigned within the Fresno Division

6

an initial Case Number 12-cv-00327-AWI-GSA, and a subsequent Case Number 12-cv-

7

00768-LJO-MJS. The latter action being entirely duplicative of the former.

8
9
10

“After weighing the equities of the case, the district court may exercise its
discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending
resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or

11
12

to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F.3d

13

684, 688 (9th Cir.2007). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate

14

actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and

15

against the same defendant.’“ Id. (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d

16

Cir.1977)). “[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not

17

significantly differ between the two actions.” Id. at 689.

18
The complaint in the instant action is duplicative and should be dismissed for
19
20

that reason.

21

///////

22

///////

23

///////

24

///////

25
///////
26
27

///////
-2-

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

The Complaint in this action be dismissed as duplicative of the Complaint
in case 1:12–cv–00327-AWI-GSA, Julita Rupisan, et al., v. JP Morgan

4

Chase Bank, N.A., et al., and

5
2.

6

The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48

June 27, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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