Kirkpatrick v. Hubman

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01048
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ty Kirkpatrick, No. CV-21-01048-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Timothy Hubman, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 16 25) and pro se Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23). Upon review, the Court finds 17 that it requires further information from the parties on a related proceeding in the Central 18 District of California. 19 The Court takes notice of the California proceeding, Kirkpatrick v. Hubman, et al., 20 2:20-cv-10161-FMO-SK, and the Plaintiff’s Complaint therein. See Trigueros v. Adams, 21 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that courts may take judicial notice of 22 proceedings in other courts). It appears that this action and the one in California arise from 23 the same underlying contractual dispute. Generally, courts may dismiss a later-filed action 24 if the parties and the basis for relief are the same as duplicative. See Adams v. California 25 Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). 26 The Court, therefore, puts Plaintiff on notice that it is contemplating dismissing this 27 action as duplicative. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) 28 (stating that courts may dismiss claims sua sponte). As neither party addresses the issue in the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Court requires additional briefing on whether this || action is duplicative of the one in California. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Ty Kirkpatrick and Defendant Timothy 5 || Hubman may each file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages on the issue of || whether this action is duplicative of Kirkpatrick v. Hubman, et al., 2:20-cv-10161-FMO- 7\| SK, which is currently pending before the Central District of California. The supplemental 8 || briefs may not be filed later than February 25, 2022. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Ty Kirkpatrick shall file notice in the matter of Kirkpatrick v. Hubman, et al., 2:20-cv-10161-FMO-SK, alerting the Central 11 || District of California of this related proceeding. 12 Dated this 15th day of February, 2022. 13 14 fe — □□ 15 norable'Diang/4. Hunfetewa 16 United States District Fudge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-