Bryant v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING Action as Duplicative of Bryant v. Wells Fargo, et al., 1:16-cv-01628 AWI MJS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/6/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 MARY JANE BRYANT,

1:17-cv-01284-LJO-MJS

11

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS
DUPLICATIVE OF BRYANT v. WELLS
FARGO, ET AL., 1:16-CV-01628 AWI
MJS

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. and TAMMY
JOHNSTON,
14
15

DefendantS.

16
17

Plaintiff Mary Jane Bryant brings this action pro se against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

18 and Tammy Johnston. ECF No. 1. Her petition to proceed in forma pauperis is pending. ECF No. 2. The
19 Complaint purports to assert a claim arising under federal law based upon 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343,
20 1344 and 1961. ECF No. 1 at 3. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Wells Fargo engaged in “foreclosure
21 fraud – securitized loan, not perfected title,” and that Tammy Johnson engaged in “trespass, illegal
22 entry” and “theft of personal property.” Id. at 4. The claims all relate to real property purchased by
23 Plaintiff’s parents in 2007 in which Plaintiff claims an ownership interest. Id. at 6. According to the
24 Complaint, the property was the subject of an improper trustee’s sale in 2016. Id. at 7.
25

These allegations are entirely encompassed within the operative Complaint in an earlier-filed
1

1

case, also brought by Plaintiff: Bryant v. Wells Fargo, et al., 1:16-CV-01628 AWI MJS. The Complaint

2

in that case asserts the same or substantially similar claim(s) against Wells Fargo, N.A., Tammy

3

Johnston and others.

4

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

5

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

6

enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. California Dept. of

7

Health Services, 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

8

553 U.S. 880 (2008). “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the

9

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

10 Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)). “[A] suit is duplicative if the claims,
11 parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Id. at 689 “Dismissal of
12 the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of proceedings, promotes
13 judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation.’ ” Id. at 692 (citation omitted). As
14 Plaintiff’s claims are duplicative of claims that she raised in a prior action that is currently pending
15 before this court, the instant action will be dismissed without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION

16
17

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as duplicative. The

18 Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
19
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 6, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
2