(PS) Arnold v. Lion's Club Int'l Assoc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03168
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIMBLY ARNOLD, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-3168-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 LION’S CLUB INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiffs, proceeding without counsel, have brought this action against Lion’s Club 19 International and several of its employees and officers. Plaintiffs have commenced another action 20 in this district against the same defendants over the same dispute. These actions appear to be 21 duplicative. See Arnold v. Lions Club International Association, No. 2:24-cv-2095-DAD-AC. 22 “Plaintiffs generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject 23 matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t 24 of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. 25 Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 26 1977) (en banc)). “[I]n assessing whether the second action is duplicative of the first, we 27 examine whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the 28 action, are the same.” Id. at 689. In light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, the court will allow plaintiffs 1 | the opportunity to file either a notice of voluntary dismissal (as duplicative) or to explain why 2 | these actions are not duplicative. If this action is duplicative, plaintiffs should proceed on the 3 | action they initially commenced.! 4 In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff Ammold has filed an application to proceed in 5 | forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff Dunham, however, has neither submitted an application to 6 | proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the required filing fee. In order to participate in this 7 | litigation, Dunham must either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 8 | required filing fee. Should he not, he will be dismissed. 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff Arnold’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 11 2. Within fourteen days of this order’s issuance, plaintiff Dunham must either file an 12 | application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the required filing fee. Failure to do so will result 13 in his dismissal from this action. 14 3. Within fourteen days of this order’s issuance, plaintiffs must either file a voluntary 15 | notice of dismissal or explain why this litigation is not duplicative of Arnold v. Lions Club 16 | International Association, No. 2:24-cv-2095-DAD-AC. Should plaintiffs fail to respond, the 17 || court will recommend that this action be dismissed. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( — Dated: _ April 3, 2025 q——— 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 ' “Federal comity and judicial economy give rise to rules which allow a district court to 26 | transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (citation omitted). “[I]ncreasing 27 | calendar congestion in the federal courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum whenever consistent with the right of the parties.” Crawford v. Bell, 599 28 | F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28