Belessis-Casoria v. Con Edison

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE - Plaintiff's action before this Court is hereby DISMISSED as duplicative. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 10/2/2013. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
MARINA BELESSIS-CASORIA
Plaintiff,

ORDER
13-CV-2517 (JS)(ARL)

-againstCON EDISON,

Defendant.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Marina Belessis-Casoria, pro se
603 Shore Road, Apt. 603
Long Beach, NY 11561
For Defendant:

No Appearance

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff Marina Belessis-Casoria
(“Plaintiff”) commenced this action alleging discrimination and
unlawful termination pursuant to Section 105 of the Family Medical
Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2615. Plaintiff, however, commenced
an identical action on the same date in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York. See Belessis-Casoria v. Con Edison,
No. 13-CV-2870, Apr. 29, 2013, Docket Entry 2.
“As

a

general

rule,

where

there

lawsuits, the first suit should have priority.”

are

two

competing

Employers Ins. of

Wausau v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 522 F.3d 271, 274-75 (2d Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The “first

to file rule embodies considerations of judicial administration and
conservation of resources.”

First City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v.

Simmons, 878 F.2d 76, 80 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing Kerotest Mfg. Co.
v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S. Ct. 219, 96 L.

Ed. 200 (1952)); see also 800-Flowers, Inc. v. Intercontinental
Florist, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 128, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (“Where two
courts have concurrent jurisdiction over an action involving the
same parties and issues, courts will follow a ‘first filed’ rule
whereby the court which first has possession of the action decides
it.”).
On June 20, 2013, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a
letter informing the Court where she first filed her action.

By

letter dated July 9, 2013, Plaintiff explained that she filed the
action in the Southern District of New York first.

As Plaintiff

cannot maintain identical actions in separate federal district
courts, and Plaintiff’s first filed action was in the Southern
District of New York, Plaintiff’s action before this Court is
hereby DISMISSED as duplicative.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and to
mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith
and therefore in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of
any appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45,

82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

October
2 , 2013
Central Islip, New York

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.