Doescher v. Aragon

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Amy Doescher, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02995-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. Tomas Aragon, 1S Defendant.

17 In this action, the parents of several school-aged children allege California’s | tmmunization laws deprive them of their rights under the First Amendment because they cannot | vaccinate their children without violating their religious convictions. See generally Second Am. | Compl., ECF No. 35. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for | failure to state a claim, under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively. See generally Mot., ECF | No. 38.

23 In a different action currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern | District of California, the plaintiffs advance very similar claims based on similar allegations, they | challenge the same state law, and they are proceeding against the same defendant. See generally | Am. Compl., Royce v. Aragon, Case No. 3:23-cv-02012-H-BLM (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024), ECF | No. 48. Defendant Aragon also moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the Royce action, | 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., | Case No. 23-2012 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2023), ECF No. 1. The Southern District court took the | pending motion in Royce under submission after hearing oral arguments on March 10, 2025. See | Mins., ECF No. 58. This court has scheduled arguments on defendant’s motion to dismiss in this | 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 | 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 | cases because the relevant Local Rule “concerns the relation of actions filed within this district, | not the transfer or reassignment of cases from one district to the next.” Order (Apr. 3, 2024), | ECF No. 17. Since then, the parties appear not to have addressed whether they believe this court | can or should stay this action under the first-to-file rule, see Kohn L. Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. | Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239-41 (9th Cir. 2015), whether they believe this action can or | should be transferred, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), nor whether this court should reserve a decision | ondefendant’s motion to dismiss pending the Southern District court’s order in Royce. The | parties are therefore ordered to be prepared to discuss those issues at the hearing on April 17, | 2025.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 DATED: March 11, 2025. oUt 21 a STATES DISTRICT JUDGE