JORDAN v. QUANDER et al
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 8/9/12. (ms, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAUL QUANDER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
CONSUELO JORDAN,
Civil Action No. 11-2297 (JDB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff initially filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, and the case was transferred here on December 29, 2011. Defendants move
to dismiss the complaint “in its entirety because the claims brought against them were raised and
currently are pending before this Court in Jordan v. Quander, Civil Action No. 11-1486 (D.D.C.)
(JDB).” Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 1.
Generally, a plaintiff has “no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same
subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Adams v.
California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Walton v. Eaton
Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70-71 (3d Cir. 1977)); cf. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v.
Ragonese, 617 F.2d 828, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (noting rule in this Circuit that, “[w]here two
cases between the same parties on the same cause of action are commenced in two different
Federal courts, the one which is commenced first is to be allowed to proceed to its conclusion
first”) (citation omitted). It is apparent that in this case plaintiff raises the same claims against
1
the same defendants seeking the same relief as in her prior civil action. To maintain a separate
civil action is a waste of judicial resources.
On consideration of defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s opposition, the Court will grant
the motion and dismiss this case. An Order is issued separately.
/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
DATE: August 9, 2012
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?