Doescher et al v. Aragon et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/11/2025 ORDERING the parties to be prepared, at the hearing on 4/17/2025, to discuss whether they believe this court can or should stay this action under the first-to-file rule, whether they believe this action can or should be transferred, nor whether this court should reserve a decision on defendant's motion to dismiss pending the Southern District court's order in Royce. (Deputy Clerk KEZ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Amy Doescher, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:23-cv-02995-KJM-JDP
ORDER

v.
Tomás Aragón,

15

Defendant.

16
17

In this action, the parents of several school-aged children allege California’s

18

immunization laws deprive them of their rights under the First Amendment because they cannot

19

vaccinate their children without violating their religious convictions. See generally Second Am.

20

Compl., ECF No. 35. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for

21

failure to state a claim, under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively. See generally Mot., ECF

22

No. 38.

23

In a different action currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern

24

District of California, the plaintiffs advance very similar claims based on similar allegations, they

25

challenge the same state law, and they are proceeding against the same defendant. See generally

26

Am. Compl., Royce v. Aragón, Case No. 3:23-cv-02012-H-BLM (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024), ECF

27

No. 48. Defendant Aragón also moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the Royce action,

28

and his arguments in that motion are similar to those he advances in this action.
1

1

This case was originally filed on December 22, 2023. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.

2

The Royce action was filed a few weeks earlier, on October 31, 2023. See generally Compl.,

3

Case No. 23-2012 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2023), ECF No. 1. The Southern District court took the

4

pending motion in Royce under submission after hearing oral arguments on March 10, 2025. See

5

Mins., ECF No. 58. This court has scheduled arguments on defendant’s motion to dismiss in this

6

action for April 17, 2025. See Mins., ECF No. 41.

7

Defendant previously stated his position in a notice of related cases that “[j]udicial

8

economy would not be served by consolidation of the two cases at the present time.” Not.

9

Related Case at 2, ECF No. 15 (emphasis in original). In response, this court did not relate the

10

cases because the relevant Local Rule “concerns the relation of actions filed within this district,

11

not the transfer or reassignment of cases from one district to the next.” Order (Apr. 3, 2024),

12

ECF No. 17. Since then, the parties appear not to have addressed whether they believe this court

13

can or should stay this action under the first-to-file rule, see Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg.

14

Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239–41 (9th Cir. 2015), whether they believe this action can or

15

should be transferred, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), nor whether this court should reserve a decision

16

on defendant’s motion to dismiss pending the Southern District court’s order in Royce. The

17

parties are therefore ordered to be prepared to discuss those issues at the hearing on April 17,

18

2025.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 11, 2025.

21

2