Gillman v. United States of America et al

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss (kjp, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZACHARY RYAN GILLMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-CV-339-GKF-TLW

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 14] of defendant the United States.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
I. Procedural Background
On June 7, 2016, plaintiff Zachary Ryan Gillman (“Gillman”) filed a complaint in this
court seeking judicial review of the denial of his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §
2671, et seq., claim by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”). [Doc. No. 1]. Specifically,
Mr. Gillman’s suit concerns “multiple sets of fake and[/]or falsified mental health information in
[his] personal Veteran[’]s Affairs medical file.” [Doc. No. 1, p. 3]. On February 24, 2015, the
United States moved to dismiss, citing, among other things, the first to file rule. [Doc. No. 14,
pp. 1–3]. Gillman’s response was initially due March 17, 2017. Receiving nothing, the court
extended Gillman’s time to respond to April 3, 2017, pursuant to N.D. Okla. Civ. R. 7.2(f). No
response has been filed.
II. Legal Standard
“The ‘first-to-file’ rule permits a district court to decline jurisdiction where a complaint
raising the same issues against the same parties has previously been filed in another district
court.” See Buzas Baseball, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Syst. Of Ga., 189 F.3d 477 (Table)

(10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished). That rule “is grounded in the concepts of comity among federal
courts and sound judicial administration.” See Chieftain Royalty Co. v. XTO Energy, Inc., No.
CIV-11-29-FHS, 2011 WL 1533073, at *1 (E.D. Okla. Apr. 22, 2011). Indeed, “courts of
coordinate jurisdiction and equal rank . . . must be careful to avoid interfering with each other’s
affairs in order” to avoid “the waste of duplication,” “rulings which may trench upon the
authority of sister courts,” and “piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” See
Buzas, 189 F.3d at 477 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To that end, courts applying applying the first-to-file rule consider: “(1) the chronology
of the actions, (2) the similarity of the parties involved, and (3) the similarity of the issues at
stake.” Chieftain, 2011 WL 1533073, at *2. Application in such circumstances “‘maximize[s]
judicial economy and minimize[s] embarrassing inconsistencies by prophylactically refusing to
hear a case raising issues that might substantially duplicate those raised by a case pending in
another court.’” See Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 724 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1166 (N.D. Okla. 2010)
(quoting Cadel v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir. 1999)). In short,
“where the jurisdiction of a federal district court has first attached, that right cannot be arrested
or taken away by proceedings in another federal district court.” See O’Hare Int’l Bank v.
Lambert, 459 F.2d 328, 331 (10th Cir. 1972); see also Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co.,
673 F.2d 1161, 1163 (10th Cir. 1982); Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th
Cir. 1965).
III. Analysis
The first-to-file rule bars Mr. Gillman’s suit here. Six months before filing the abovecaptioned matter, Mr. Gillman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii. That suit involves identical parties and issues. Indeed, the Amended Complaint in the

2

Hawaii action centers on the “multiple sets of fake and[/]or falsified mental health information in
[Mr. Gillman’s] personal Veterans Affairs medical,” [Doc. No. 15, p. 4], that are the subject of
Mr. Gillman’s suit before this court, [Doc. No. 1, p. 3]. Moreover, Mr. Gillman articulates the
same irreparable injuries and requests substantially similar relief in both cases. Compare [Doc.
No. 15, pp. 5–6] with [Doc. No. 1, pp. 3–5]. Accordingly, this court will yield jurisdiction to the
District Court for the District of Hawaii. See Nash, 724 F.Supp.2d at 1166.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 14] of the United States is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2017.

3