1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NADEZHDA JONES, Case No. 21-cv-05828-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 9 v. RESOLVING OUTSTANDING MOTIONS 10 MARK GHALY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 30, 32, 33, 44 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Nadhezdha Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in federal court on July 27, 2021. 14 (Dkt. No. 1.) That same day, Plaintiff filed an identical lawsuit against the same defendants in 15 Alameda County Superior Court. See Jones v. Ghaly, No. 21-cv-7844-JSW (“Related Case”). 16 The Regents removed the Related Case on October 7, 2021. Defendants did not receive notice of 17 the federal action until October 25, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 17.) The parties and claims in this case 18 are virtually identical to those in the Related Case. 19 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in this case. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 32.) Plaintiff did 20 not file an opposition to either motion to dismiss within the time as required by Civil Local Rule 21 7-3. On January 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action pending resolution of the 22 Related Case. (Dkt. No. 33.) On January 14, 2022, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause 23 (1) why the case should not be dismissed as duplicative of the Related Case, and (2) why 24 Defendants’ motions to dismiss should not be granted. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure 25 to respond could result in the motions being granted and the action being dismissed. On January 26 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. Plaintiff’s response 27 addressed the first part of the Court’s order to show cause but did not address Defendants’ 1 arguments for dismissal.1 2 The Court will address additional facts as necessary in the analysis. 3 ANALYSIS 4 A. The Court Dismisses This Case As Duplicative. 5 Federal courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.” 6 Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

, 254 7 (1936) (every federal court has the inherent power “to control disposition of the causes on its 8 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). “Plaintiffs 9 generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the 10 same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Adams v. Calif. Dep’t of Health 11 Services,

, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (affirming the dismissal of a later- 12 filed duplicative lawsuit). A plaintiff must bring one action against a party relating to the same 13 transaction or event. Id. at 693. “District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets 14 and ‘[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, ... 15 dismissal.’” Id. at 688 (citation omitted). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district 16 court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action.” Id.; see also M.M. v. 17 Lafayette Sch. Dist.,

(9th Cir. 2012) (“a district court has broad discretion to 18 control its own docket, and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims”); Shappell v. 19 Sun Life Assur. Co., No. 10-cv-03020-MCE-EFB,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 20 2011) (dismissing second of two separate, but identical, actions, observing that “[t]he inherent 21 power to manage the Court's own docket permits it to order dismissal of duplicative claims in 22 order to foster judicial economy and the ‘comprehensive disposal of litigation’”) (citation 23 omitted). 24 Here, the only difference between the complaints is the relief sought. In this case, Plaintiff 25 asserts that she seeks only injunctive relief and not monetary damages against the state 26 Defendants. Plaintiff limits her requested relief in this action in an effort to avoid dismissal 27 1 against the two named state official, Baass and Ghaly, under the Ex parte Young doctrine, which is 2 an exception to the immunity afforded by the Eleventh Amendment. See Ex parte Young, 209

, 157 (1908). However, the FAC and administrative record attached show that neither 4 official played a role in the allegedly wrongful act, and thus Plaintiff cannot establish the nexus 5 required to overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity. As a result, Plaintiff’s attempt to 6 differentiate the cases based on the relief sought is unpersuasive, and the Court finds the cases are 7 duplicative. 8 Plaintiff also fails to show that a stay, rather than dismissal, is warranted. Plaintiff argues 9 that a stay is needed to avoid the inefficiencies of litigating two parallel cases in federal court. 10 However, Plaintiff herself created these inefficiencies by filing duplicative actions and opposing 11 consolidation. 12 The Court sees no justification for allowing two separate, but identical, cases to proceed. 13 In the interests of judicial economy, the Court dismisses this action on the ground that it is 14 duplicative of the parties and claims and matters at issue in the pending Related Case and denies 15 Plaintiff’s request to stay the action pending resolution of the Related Case. 16 B. Plaintiff’s Failure to Oppose Defendants’ Motions Is An Alternative Basis for Dismissal. 17 18 Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court 19 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants’ motions to dismiss should not be granted and 20 cautioned Plaintiff that failure to respond could result in the motions being granted and the action 21 being dismissed. In her response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff failed to address 22 Defendants’ numerous arguments for dismissal. The Court views Plaintiff’s failure to oppose 23 these arguments as a concession that those claims should be dismissed. Marziano v. Cty. of 24 Marin, No. C-10-2740 EMC,

, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010); see also Shakur 25 v. Schriro,

(9th Cir. 2008) (litigants waive arguments by failing to raise them in 26 an opposition to a motion to dismiss). Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendants’ motions to 27 dismiss is an alternative basis for dismissal. 1 // 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action. The Court DENIES the 4 || other pending motions as moot. A separate judgment shall issue, and the Clerk shall close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: April 15, 2022 / | ) 7 \LFRY £ Tike JEFFREY S (NATTY 8 United Statdé Distriet J udge 9 10 1]

13

16

«17

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28