Faraldi v. Morss et al

Filing 11

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than April 26, 2013, why the instant action should not be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs pursuing her claims in the Middle District of Tennessee. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 4, 2013. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DONNA L. FARALDI, Individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of MICHAEL A.
FARALDI,

No. C 13-0853 MMC
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED

11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
14

DAVID MORSS, HAROLD ANDERSON,
DRAGON AVIATION, INC., and ROBERT
DUNCAN JEFFREY,

15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18

On February 25, 2013, Donna L. Faraldi, individually and as executrix of the Estate

19

of Michael A. Faraldi, filed her complaint in the above-titled action against defendants David

20

Morss (“Morss”), Harold Anderson (“Anderson”), Dragon Aviation, Inc. (“Dragon Aviation”),

21

and Robert Duncan Jeffrey (“Jeffrey”). That same date and the following day, plaintiff filed,

22

in the Middle District of Tennessee and the District of Oregon, respectively, essentially

23

identical complaints against the same four defendants, alleging the same causes of action

24

and seeking the same relief. See Faraldi v. Anderson, No. 13-0167, (M.D. Tenn. filed Feb.

25

25, 2013); Faraldi v. Jefferson, No. 13-0330 (D. Or. filed Feb. 26, 2013).

26

Where multiple federal district courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over

27

an action, “the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” See Colorado River

28

Water Conservation Dist. v. U. S., 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). Consistent therewith, “[t]here

1

is a generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a district court to decline

2

jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has

3

already been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93,

4

94-95 (9th Cir. 1982).

5

In this instance, although the precise sequence of the above-referenced three filings

6

cannot be determined from the record currently available to the Court, it would appear that

7

all four defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Tennessee,1 whereas it does not

8

appear likely, at least from the allegations in the complaint, that this Court would have

9

personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants other than Morss.2

10

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later

11

than April 26, 2013, why the instant action should not be dismissed without prejudice to

12

plaintiff’s pursuing her claims in the Middle District of Tennessee.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated: April 4, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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

1

Defendant Anderson is alleged to be a citizen of Tennessee (see Compl. ¶ 13),
defendant Dragon Aviation is alleged to have its principle place of business in Tennessee
(see Compl. ¶ 14), and the acts giving rise to plaintiff’s causes of action against defendants
Morss and Jeffrey are alleged to have been committed in Tennessee (see Compl. ¶¶ 6266, 123-30, 210-37).
2

Defendant Morss is alleged to be a citizen of California (see Compl. ¶ 12),
defendant Jeffrey is alleged to be a citizen of Oregon (see Compl. ¶ 15), the other two
defendants, as noted, are alleged to be citizens of Tennessee, and no events giving rise to
the instant action are alleged to have occurred in California.
2