Tameka L. Parker v. Zoox, Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * TAMEKA L. PARKER, Case No. 2:25-cv-02513-JAD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT and 6 v. RECOMMENDATION ZOOX, INC., ECF No. 4 8 Defendant.

On 12/29/25, the magistrate judge entered this report and recommendation [ECF No. 4]: Pending before the Court is an instant action titled Parker v. Zoox, Inc. The content of the Complaint in this matter (ECF No. 1-1) is an exact duplicate of the content in the Complaint proceeding before Judges Boulware and Koppe. See Case No. 2:25-cv-1898-RFB-NJK (the “1898 Matter”), ECF No. 9.

“Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008), (cleaned up) (quoting Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977)). “Two actions are in the ‘same court’ within the meaning of the claim-splitting doctrine when both were filed in federal court.” Almaznai v. S-L Distr. Co., Case No. 20-cv-08487-JST, 2021 20 WL 4457025, at *5 n.5 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021).

What is undeniable is that the substance of the Complaint in this case duplicates the substance of the Complaint in the 1898 Matter. The cases are brought by the same Plaintiff (Tameka Parker) against the same Defendant (Zoox) in the same court (the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada). Given these facts, the Court finds permitting the instant matter to proceed would be contrary to well settled law.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint in Parker v. Zoox, Case No. 25-cv-2513-JAD-EJY be dismissed and this action be closed in its entirety. ] IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that any filings submitted bearing the case number || this action be redirected to Case No. 25-cv-1898.

3 Dated this 29th day of December, 2025.

5 .

ELAYNA J. YO A 6 UNITED/SSTATESMA RATE JUDGE 8 ORDER 9 The deadline for any party to object to this recommendation was 1/12/26, and no || party filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a || magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and |} recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that th || Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] is ADOPTED in its entirety, and || THIS CASE IS DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the report and recommendation. The Clet || of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Plaintiff Tameka L. Parker is advised that any || further filings related to her claims against Zoox, Inc. must be filed in Case No. 25-cv-1898- || RFB-NJK instead.

Lee 71 Dated: January 23, 2026