Blandino v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01727
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Kim Blandino, Case No. 2:24-cv-01727-CDS-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order Discharging Order to Show Cause, Denying as Moot Plaintiff’s Motion for 5 v. Clarification, and Dismissing Case

6 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., 7 [ECF Nos. 8, 9]

8 Defendants

9 10 On October 7, 2024, I issued an order to show cause (OSC) requiring plaintiff Kim 11 Blandino to demonstrate why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative to Blandino v. Las 12 Vegas Metro Police Department, 2:22-cv-00562-GMN-MDC. OSC, ECF No. 8. Blandino filed a 13 response to the show-cause order. Resp., ECF No. 10. Therein, he concedes this action is 14 duplicative to the 2022 case before United States District Judge Gloria M. Navarro. He claims 15 that he was left with “no alternative” but to bring this duplicative action to “protect his rights.” 16 Id. at 2. However, a plaintiff cannot continue to file new lawsuits against the same defendant 17 based on the same facts until he is successful. That is because “[t]he ultimate objective of [the] 18 rule against claim-splitting is to ‘protect [a] Defendant from being harassed by repetitive actions 19 based on the same claim’ and to promote judicial economy and convenience.” Bojorquez v. 20 Abercrombie & Fitch, Co., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Clements v. Airport Auth. 21 of Washoe Cnty., 69 F.3d 321, 328 (9th Cir. 1995)). 22 Because both the 2:22-cv-00562-GMN-MDC case and this case involve the same parties, 23 some of the same claims arise out of the same incident, and both involve almost the same request 24 for relief, I find the anti-claim-splitting doctrine is violated here. See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health 25 Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a suit is duplicative if it involves the 26 same parties or those that represent same interests, asserts the same rights and the essence of relief is the same). So I must determine the appropriate remedy: consolidation with the 2022 2|| action or dismissal. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate any actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.” A “district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Rsch. Co. v. United States 5}| Dist. Court for Cent. Dist., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). I decline to consolidate this action with the 2022 action because doing so would be futile: that action is now closed. See ECF Nos. 127 (order granting summary judgment), 128 (judgment) in 2:22-cv-00562-GMN-MDC|! 8]| Consequently, I find dismissal to be the appropriate remedy. See Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 9} F.3d 1013, 1025 (9th Cir. 2011) (referring to actions dismissed for claim splitting as ones where the “plaintiff was, in effect, attempting to avoid an unfavorable prior ruling in one case by filing essentially the same claims in a new case”). This action is hereby dismissed, without prejudice, 12|| as duplicative. 13 Further, in response to the show-cause order, Blandino filed a “motion for clarification.” Mot., ECF No. 9. Therein, Blandino requests clarification as to whether, if this case is dismissed, it would be dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. Blandino’s motion is denied as moot as this action is now denied without prejudice. 17 Conclusion 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order to show cause [ECF No. 8] is discharged and Blandino’s motion for clarification [ECF No. 9] is denied as moot. 20 This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk, of Court is kindly directed to close this case. /, / 22 Dated: June 4, 2025 LL —<— 54 ved States District Judge 5 Judge Navarro did not allow Blandino leave to fi e a second amended complaint because he filed his motion for leave months after the deadline and did not demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect for 26|| doing so. See ECF No. 127 at 10 in 2:22-cv-00562-GMN-MDC. Because Judge Navarro granted summary judgment for defendants and denied leave to amend, Blandino may not continue to bring claims relating to this set of facts.