Doescher v. Aragon

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02995
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Amy Doescher, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02995-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. Tomas Aragon, 1S Defendant. 16 17 In this action, the parents of several school-aged children allege California’s 18 | tmmunization laws deprive them of their rights under the First Amendment because they cannot 19 | vaccinate their children without violating their religious convictions. See generally Second Am. 20 | Compl., ECF No. 35. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for 21 | failure to state a claim, under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively. See generally Mot., ECF 22 | No. 38. 23 In a different action currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern 24 | District of California, the plaintiffs advance very similar claims based on similar allegations, they 25 | challenge the same state law, and they are proceeding against the same defendant. See generally 26 | Am. Compl., Royce v. Aragon, Case No. 3:23-cv-02012-H-BLM (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024), ECF 27 | No. 48. Defendant Aragon also moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the Royce action, 28 | and his arguments in that motion are similar to those he advances in this action.

] This case was originally filed on December 22, 2023. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. 2 | The Royce action was filed a few weeks earlier, on October 31, 2023. See generally Compl., 3 | Case No. 23-2012 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2023), ECF No. 1. The Southern District court took the 4 | pending motion in Royce under submission after hearing oral arguments on March 10, 2025. See 5 | Mins., ECF No. 58. This court has scheduled arguments on defendant’s motion to dismiss in this 6 | action for April 17, 2025. See Mins., ECF No. 41. 7 Defendant previously stated his position in a notice of related cases that “[j Judicial 8 | economy would not be served by consolidation of the two cases at the present time.” Not. 9 | Related Case at 2, ECF No. 15 (emphasis in original). In response, this court did not relate the 10 | cases because the relevant Local Rule “concerns the relation of actions filed within this district, 11 | not the transfer or reassignment of cases from one district to the next.” Order (Apr. 3, 2024), 12 | ECF No. 17. Since then, the parties appear not to have addressed whether they believe this court 13 | can or should stay this action under the first-to-file rule, see Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. 14 | Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239-41 (9th Cir. 2015), whether they believe this action can or 15 | should be transferred, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), nor whether this court should reserve a decision 16 | ondefendant’s motion to dismiss pending the Southern District court’s order in Royce. The 17 | parties are therefore ordered to be prepared to discuss those issues at the hearing on April 17, 18 | 2025. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: March 11, 2025. oUt 21 a STATES DISTRICT JUDGE