Basham v. Midland Funding, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT Case No. 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD) MANAGEMENT, INC., TELEPHONE 12 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT Member Case Nos. 13 LITIGATION 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD); 15-cv-2282-MMA (MDD) 14 15 ORDER DISMISSING DUPLICATIVE MEMBER CASE 16 17 18 In the process of suggesting remand of pro se member Plaintiff Angela Basham’s 19 (“Plaintiff”) claims, the Court detected an administrative discrepancy stemming from the 20 transfer of her member case to this Court in 2015. Plaintiff filed a single civil action in 21 the transferor court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: Basham 22 v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 4:15-cv-30-CDP (E.D. Mo.) (the “Missouri action”). 23 However, upon transfer to this Court for consolidation within this multidistrict litigation 24 (“MDL”), the Missouri action was assigned two distinct member case numbers resulting 25 in the Clerk of Court opening two separate civil actions: Basham v. Midland Funding, 26 LLC, No. 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD) (S.D. Cal.) and Basham v. Midland Funding, LLC, 27 No. 15-cv-2282-MMA (MDD) (S.D. Cal.) (collectively, the “member cases”). Both 28 member cases before this Court trace to the Missouri action. The Court finds that one of 1 the member cases must be dismissed to resolve the administrative discrepancy and to 2 avoid a duplicative action from proceeding. 3 Plaintiff filed the Missouri action in Missouri state court in November 2014. See 4 Dkt. 15-cv-2282, Doc. No. 1-1 at 2.1 In January 2015, Defendants removed the action to 5 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. See Dkt. 15-cv-2282, Doc. 6 No. 1 at 1–2. On June 22, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of a tag-along action and 7 requested that the Panel transfer the Missouri action and consolidate it within this MDL. 8 See JPML No. 2286, Doc. No 616. On June 25, 2015, the Panel issued a conditional 9 transfer order for the Missouri action, set a deadline for filing oppositions, and stayed the 10 transmittal of the order pending any opposition and further order of the panel. See JPML 11 No. 2286, Doc. Nos. 625, 626. On July 6, 2015 and after finding that no party filed an 12 objection, the Panel finalized the conditional transfer order and lifted the stay. See JPML 13 No. 2286, Doc. No. 628. Pursuant to the Panel’s order, the Panel transferred the Missouri 14 action to this district; the Clerk of Court processed the transfer by opening a new member 15 case in this district and assigning the Missouri action case number 15-cv-1479-MMA 16 (MDD). See Dkt. 15-cv-1479, Doc. No. 31. 17 On July 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of opposition to the Panel’s conditional 18 transfer order and noted that she did not receive the Panel’s notice for filing an opposition 19 until after the deadline. JPML No. 2286, Doc. No. 635 at 1. The Panel deemed 20 Plaintiff’s opposition as timely, reinstated the stay of its June 25 conditional transfer 21 order, and set a briefing schedule. JPML No. 2286, Doc. Nos. 636, 638. The Panel’s 22 order was docketed in case 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD) to indicate the stay and subsequent 23 briefing. See Dkt. 15-cv-1479, Doc. No. 33. 24 25 26 1 All citations refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system. The Court cites to the docket of 27 case 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD) as “Dkt. 15-cv-1479, Doc. No.” and of case 15-cv-2282-MMA (MDD) as “Dkt. 15-cv-2282, Doc. No.” The Court cites to the docket of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 28 1 On October 13, 2015, the Panel found the Missouri action proper for transfer to 2 this Court as part of the MDL. See JPML No. 2286, Doc. No. 714. Pursuant to the 3 Panel’s order, the Panel once again transferred the Missouri action to this district; the 4 Clerk of Court processed the transfer by opening another new member case and assigning 5 the Missouri action a second case number: 15-cv-2282-MMA (MDD). See Dkt. 15-cv- 6 2282, Doc. No. 36. 7 Until December 2019, both member case dockets remained inactive except for 8 occasional filings that pertained to the overall MDL. In December 2019, Plaintiff filed a 9 motion—which listed both member case numbers in the caption—which the Magistrate 10 Judge addressed on both dockets. See Dkt. 15-cv-1479, Doc. Nos. 40, 41, 43, 44; Dkt. 11 15-cv-2282, Doc. Nos. 44, 45, 47, 48. The dockets of the member cases diverged 12 January 2020 through June 2020: there are several discovery-related discrepancy orders 13 that only appear on the docket of member case number 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD). See 14 Dkt. 15-cv-1479, Doc. Nos. 45–49. Since July 2020, the dockets of the member cases 15 reflect identical filings. See Dkt. 15-cv-1479, Doc. Nos. 50–57; Dkt. 15-cv-2282, Doc. 16 Nos. 49–56. 17 Courts possess the inherent power to “to control the disposition of the causes on its 18 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis 19 v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Between federal courts, “the general principle 20 is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United 21 States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); see also Kaye v. Superior Court of California, No. SA 22 CV 18-01520 JLS (AFM), 2018 WL 4372675, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018). Thus, “a 23 district court may exercise its discretion to control its docket by dismissing a duplicative, 24 later-filed action.” Kaye, 2018 WL 4372675, at *1 (citing Adams v. California Dep’t of 25 Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007)). 26 The Court recognizes that having two member cases with an identical underlying 27 action was an administrative error and not the fault of the parties. Having identified this 28 mistake, the Court finds that one of the member cases should be dismissed. The first 1 ||member case should be dismissed as duplicative—trather than the second—because the 2 ||record of the second member case accurately reflects the procedural history regarding the 3 ||transfer of the Missouri action from the Eastern District of Missouri. 4 Accordingly, to resolve the administrative error of maintaining two MDL member 5 ||cases for the same underlying action, the Court DISMISSES member case 15-cv-1479- 6 ||MMA (MDD) without prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close that case. 7 ||Subsequent to the issuance of this order, no further documents will be accepted for filing 8 ||in member case 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD). 9 As previously noted, the second member case’s docket lacks several documents 10 ||that are only found on the first member case’s docket. See Dkt. 15-cv-1479, Doc. Nos. 11 ||45-49. The Court finds these items should be filed on the second member case’s docket 12 ||to preserve the complete record of these proceedings. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS 13 ||the Clerk of Court to file document numbers 45 through 49 from the docket of member 14 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD) onto the docket of member case 15-cv-2282-MMA 15 ||(MDD), nunc pro tunc to the original filing date of each document. 16 The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to docket this order only on the 17 ||member case dockets: 15-cv-1479-MMA (MDD) and 15-cv-2282-MMA (MDD). 18 IT ISSO ORDERED. 19 20 ||Dated: November 20, 2020 22 HON’ MICHAEL M. ANELLO 93 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28