Hume v. Su et al

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing Complaint as Duplicative, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/3/15. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Case No. 1:15-cv-00486-LJO-SKO
DAVID HUME,

8
9

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS
DUPLICATIVE

v.

10
11

JULIE SU, et al.,

12

Defendants.
_____________________________________

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

BACKGROUND
On August 25, 2014, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement filed suit
against David Hume ("Hume") stating one cause of action for backpay and injunctive relief for
unlawful discharge in violation of California Labor Code Section 98.6. (Su v. Hume et al.,
("Hume I"), 1:14-cv-01917-JAM-GSA, Doc. 1, p. 7-14.) On December 3, 2014, Hume removed
the case to this Court asserting federal jurisdiction. (Hume I, 1:14-cv-01917-JAM-GSA, Doc. 1.)
Among other things, Hume predicated his assertion of federal jurisdiction on a "cross-complaint"
he filed on December 11, 2014, after he removed the case to federal court. (See Hume I, 1:14-cv01917-JAM-GSA, Doc. 6.) The cross-complaint asserted 19 causes of action against Julie Su,
Christine Baker, Ethera Clemons, Barbara Beckerley, World Financial Corporation, Primerica
Corporation, and ROES 1-100. (Hume I, 1:14-cv-01917-JAM-GSA, Doc. 6.)
Hume filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint in Hume I on February 2, 2015. (See Hume
I, 1:14-cv-01917-JAM-GSA, Doc. 21.) On April 2, 2015, Judge Mendez determined neither the
complaint nor the First Amended Cross-Complaint supplied subject matter jurisdiction, and the
matter was remanded to Fresno County Superior Court, where it remains pending. (Hume I, 1:14-

1 cv-01917-JAM-GSA, Doc. 25; Su v. Hume, et al., 14-CE-CG-02826 (Fresno County Superior
2 Court).)
3

On March 25, 2015, Hume filed a verified complaint in this action (Hume v. Su, et al.,

4 ("Hume II"), 1:15-cv-00486-LJO-SKO) which is virtually identical to the First Amended Cross5 Complaint filed in Hume I.
6
7

DISCUSSION
Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to

8 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(d). Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).
9 "[A]n IFP complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered
10 abusive and dismissed under the authority of section 1915(d)." Id.
11

Upon review of the dockets of both Hume I, 1:14-cv-01917-JAM-GSA and Sue v. Hume,

12 et al., 14-CE-CG-02826, the complaint in this action, Hume II, is duplicative of the First Amended
13 Cross-Complaint now pending before the Fresno County Superior Court. The causes of action
14 alleged are identical and arise out of the same factual allegations made in the First Amended
15 Cross-Complaint in Hume I. See Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th
16 Cir. 2007) ("[A] suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly
17 differ between the two actions."). Therefore, Hume II shall be dismissed as duplicative of Hume I.
18

CONCLUSION

19

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative of his First

21

Amended Cross-Complaint currently pending before the Fresno County Superior

22

Court; and

23

2.

The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 3, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
2