Bryant v. Sclaet Portfolio Servicing et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING Action as Duplicative of Bryant v. Wells Fargo, No. 1:16-cv-01628-AWI-MJS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/10/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY JANE BRYANT,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:17-cv-01219-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
WELLS FARGO, and THE WOLF FIRM,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS
DUPLICATIVE OF BRYANT v. WELLS
FARGO, No. 1:16-cv-01628-AWI-MJS

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Mary Jane Bryant brings this action pro se against defendants Select Portfolio

19

Servicing, Wells Fargo, and the Wolf Firm. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma

20

pauperis is pending before the court. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint purports to assert a

21

claim arising under federal law based upon 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1961. (See Doc. No. 1

22

at 3.) In addition, plaintiff’s claims appear to arise from a foreclosure of her parents’ house. (Id.

23

at 4.) These allegations are entirely encompassed within the operative complaint in another case

24

pending before this court, which plaintiff initiated in 2016: Bryant v. Wells Fargo, No. 1:16-cv-

25

01628-AWI-MJS, ECF No. 1 (complaint filed October 28, 2016). The complaint in that earlier

26

filed case states substantially similar allegations against defendant Wells Fargo and others.

27

Additionally, there are two pending motions in that case relating to the complaint: a motion to

28

dismiss and a motion for an order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant. See id., ECF Nos. 5, 8.
1

1

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

2

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

3

filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams

4

v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by

5

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two

6

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

7

the same defendant.’” Id. (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en

8

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

9

differ between the two actions.” Id. at 689. “Dismissal of the duplicative lawsuit, more so than

10

the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the

11

‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” Id. at 692 (citation omitted). As plaintiff’s claims are

12

duplicative of claims that she raised in a prior action that is currently pending before this court,

13

the instant action will be dismissed without leave to amend.

14

Separately, the court notes that plaintiff’s address of record in this case differs from her

15

address of record in the earlier-filed suit, Bryant v. Wells Fargo, No. 1:16-cv-01628-AWI-MJS.

16

In light of plaintiff’s recent allegations that she “[has] been in hiding” (see Doc. No. 1 at 6), it is

17

possible she may no longer reside at the address of record listed in the earlier-filed suit and may

18

not be receiving documents filed in that case. The Local Rules of this court provide:

19
20
21
22

A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and
opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail
directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by
the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court
and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a
current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice
for failure to prosecute.

23

Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff is therefore advised to immediately apprise the court of her current

24

address, if appropriate, in that case.

25

Accordingly,

26

1. Plaintiff’s complaint filed in this action is dismissed without leave to amend as

27
28

duplicative;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and
2

1

3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail plaintiff a courtesy copy of the

2

docket sheet in the earlier-filed suit, Bryant v. Wells Fargo, No. 1:16-cv-01628-AWI-

3

MJS, along with this order.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3