Sturdza v. United Arab Emitates Government

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
APR 1 6 2009
) NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK
Elena Sturdza, ) U.S. DISTRICT COURT
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09 U699
)
United Arab Emirates et ai., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________ 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Elena Sturdza has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se
complaint asserting copyright infringement, theft, and other claims. The application will be
granted and the pro se complaint dismissed as duplicative and redundant.
Plaintiff s complaint identifies twenty defendants, all of whom she has sued previously
for claims arising from the same cause of action. 1 Two of the plaintiff s three actions are still
pending and every defendant named in the instant complaint is also named in one of the two
pending cases. As the instant complaint acknowledges, "the five cases [including the ones on
appeal] are closely related. All factual allegations set forth in the related complaints are hereby
incorporated by reference into each Count contained in this complaint." CompI. at 5. The
complaint further instructs that all the other complaints, addenda to the other complaints, and all
the pleadings filed in all the related cases are an integral part of this complaint. Id. In other
1 See Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates et aI., Civil Action No. 98-2051 (HHK) (D.D.C.)
(pending); Sturdza v. Szymkowicz & Assocs. et ai., Civil Action No. 01-2274 (JDB) (D.D.C.)
(closed); Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates et ai., Civil Action No. 08-1642 (HHK) (D.D.C.)
(pending).
l~1
words, it is conceded that the instant complaint is largely - if not completely - duplicative of
complaints in actions that have already been decided or are still pending.
To the extent that plaintiffs complaint presents claims that have already been decided,
the claims in the instant complaint are barred by res judicata. To the extent that the instant
complaint presents new facts that support additional claims against the defendants, those facts
and claims may be placed before the court in a motion to amend her existing complaints.
However, to allow yet another complaint arising from the same nucleus of facts would defeat the
goals of judicial economy and conservation of litigation resources. 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 defendants." Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.
1977). In consideration of "wise judicial administration," a district court may use its inherent
powers to dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another suit in federal court. Colorado River Water
Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (internal quotation marks,
alterations, and citations omitted). Accordingly, pursuant to the court's inherent powers to
administer its own docket, the instant complaint will be dismissed as duplicative of, and
redundant to, pending actions. 2
A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
li28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See e.g., Risley v. Hawk,
918 F. Supp. 18,22 (D.D.C. 1996); McWilliams v. State of Colo. , 121 F.3d 573,574 (lOth Cir.
1997); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 N.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Pittman v. Moore, 980
F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993).
-2-