Silva et al v. Bennett et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 2/20/2018. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOE ADALBERTO SILVA, et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-06550-VC

Plaintiffs,
v.
BRETT BENNETT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AND DENYING MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 14

1. This action is dismissed as duplicative. The plaintiffs do not contest that both this
case and Silva v. City of San Pablo, No. 3:16-cv-04360-VC, have identical causes of action and
pursue the same relief. See Adams v. California Department of Health Services, 487 F.3d 684,
689 (9th Cir. 2007). Nor do the plaintiffs contest that the parties in the two actions are either the
same or in privity for purposes of claim-splitting and claim preclusion. See, e.g., Tahoe-Sierra
Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003);
Bojorquez v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2016).
Dismissal is appropriate because it appears that the plaintiffs have filed this second suit to
circumvent the procedural rules that govern the amendment of complaints. See Cook v. C.R.
England, Inc., No. CV 12-3515-GW, 2012 WL 2373258, at *9 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2012). The
dismissal is without prejudice, and the court will address the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend the Silva v. City of San Pablo complaint once that motion has been fully briefed.
2. The motion for sanctions is denied. See Dkt. No. 14. If anything, both sides should
be sanctioned for wasting the Court's time – plaintiffs' counsel for bringing an obviously
duplicative lawsuit and defendants' counsel for making a frivolous res judicata argument.

3. The clerk of the court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2018
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2