Opinion
CIVIL 1:22-CV-01324
09-22-2023
KIMBERLY ARMSTRONG, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ABC CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants
SUMMERHAYES, DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are two identical cases, this matter and Armstrong v. ABC Corporation, Case No. 1:21-CV-4368. It is recommended that the above-captioned, second-filed case be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of a pending case.
I. Background
Plaintiffs Kimberley Armstrong and Gabrielle Armstrong file two identical complaints against Biotronik, Inc. and its insurer. Plaintiffs filed one lawsuit in the Louisiana Ninth Judicial District Court in Rapides Parish, and the other in the Louisiana 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. Both complaints were filed on August 27, 2021. ECF No. 1-2 at 25.
Both actions were removed by Biotronik. The case in Rapides Parish was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division, where it was given Case No. 21-4368.
The case in East Baton Rouge Parish was removed to the Middle District of Louisiana. That case was later transferred, on motion of Biotronik, to the Western District, Alexandria Division, where it was given Case No. 22-1324 and assigned to District Judge Foote.
Case No. 22-1324 was reassigned to different judges several times.
Both cases have proceeded in a parallel fashion. On September 23, 2022, both cases were reassigned to District Judge Summerhayes. Armstrong filed identical Amended Complaints in both cases. Biotronik then filed identical Motions to Dismiss in both cases.
Because these cases are duplicative, this case, which was second-filed, should be dismissed as duplicative. See Rich Land Seed Co. Inc. v. Memphis Light Gas & Water, 2022 WL 943147, at *1 (W.D. La. 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 910152 (W.D. La. 2022) (“The Court may dismiss duplicative cases sua sponte, provided the procedure for dismissal employed is fair.); Tyler v. Ocwen Loan Services, Inc., 2015 WL 12763518, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 12776732 (N.D. Tex. 2015); Akbar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 2010 WL 11628462, at *2 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (“Dismissal of a complaint as duplicative is not a determination on the merits; rather, it is simply a determination that the merits should be adjudicated in the first-filed case.”).
II. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS DUPLICATIVE of a pending case.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this Report and Recommendation have fourteen (14) calendar days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. No other briefs (such as supplemental objections, reply briefs, etc.) may be filed. Providing a courtesy copy of the objection to the undersigned is neither required nor encouraged. Timely objections will be considered by the District Judge before a final ruling.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Judge, except upon grounds of plain error.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED .