NOVAK et al v. DOUGLAS A. LINES, P.C. et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying without prejudice 8 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 10 Motion for Hearing. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss due 08/17/2011; plaintiffs' response due 09/02/2011; defendants' reply due 09/09/2011. See attached Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 07/27/2011. (lcjmf1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOMINIC NOVAK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 11-468 (JMF)

v.
DOUGLAS A. LINES, P.C., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
As indicated at the hearing held today, I wish counsel to brief more thoroughly the
following questions:
1.

Does this case present a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution,
or is the potential harm to be done by defendant Douglas A. Lines’ prosecution of
the case in the Commonwealth, Douglas A. Lines, P.C., et al. v. Patrick M.
Regan, et al., CL10-2380, too remote and hypothetical, such that this case is
rendered non-justiciable?

2.

Do Regan Zambri & Long, PLLC., and Patrick M. Regan, Esq., have standing,
independent of plaintiff Dominic Novak, to prosecute this action?

3.

Assuming for the sake argument that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, should it nevertheless abstain from exercising that jurisdiction in light of
the concurrent proceedings in the Commonwealth of Virginia? Parties are
advised to consider the following cases: Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), Handy v. Shaw, Bransford, Veilleux &
Roth, 325 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 2003), Reiman v. Bromley Smith, 12 F.3d 222

(D.C. Cir. 1993), 1443 Chapin Street, LP, v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Assoc’n, 718 F.
Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2010).
It is, therefore, hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [#8] is DENIED
without prejudice. It is further, hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Request for Oral Argument Concerning Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss [#10] is DENIED as moot. It is further, hereby,
ORDERED that defendants file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter and lack of standing, or, in the alternative, to abstain from exercising jurisdiction,
by August 17, 2011. It is further, hereby,
ORDERED that plaintiffs file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss by September
2, 2011. It is further, hereby,
ORDERED that defendants file a reply by September 9, 2011. Finally, it is, hereby,
ORDERED that discovery is stayed in this case until the motion to dismiss has been
resolved.
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by John M.
Facciola
DN: c=US, st=DC, ou=District of
Columbia,
email=John_M._Facciola@dcd.u
scourts.gov, o=U.S. District
Court, District of Columbia,
cn=John M. Facciola
Date: 2011.07.27 16:56:08 -04'00'

JOHN M. FACCIOLA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2