Opinion
Civil Action 21-1878 (TJK)
10-20-2021
SEAN MATTHEW FINNEGAN, Plaintiff, v. SOJOURN, LLC et al., Defendants.
ORDER
TIMOTHY J. KELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for a Pre-Filing Injunction Against Plaintiff, ECF No. 14. Defendants move this Court to (1) dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, see ECF No. 2, Ex. A; (2) enjoin Plaintiff from filing any additional lawsuits against Defendants, their agents, or their counsel in any federal court or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia without first obtaining leave of this Court; and (3) order Plaintiff to dismiss actions he has brought against Defendants' counsel that are currently pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See ECF No. 14 at 1, 8. As explained below, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
First, the motion is GRANTED IN PART insofar as Plaintiff's Complaint in this action, see ECF No. 2, Ex. A, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As Plaintiff has conceded by failing to respond to the motion, see Local Civil Rule 7(b), he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009). Plaintiff also has failed to prosecute this action by failing to respond to the motion, the Court's order advising him to respond, ECF No. 15, and the Court's order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, Minute Order of September 20, 2021, even after all that provided him-without him having asked for it-nearly two months' additional time to respond to the motion. See Local Civil Rule 83.23; Jenkins v. Nat'l R.R. Corp., No. 19-cv-2414 (RDM), 2020 WL 3971938, at *3 n.1 (D.D.C. July 14, 2020); Bishop v. Gen. Servs. Admin., No. 19-cv-1396 (CKK), 2020 WL 977973, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2020). The Court notes that the docket reflects that both orders were successfully mailed to Plaintiff's address of record, so Plaintiff had notice of the consequences of his failure to respond. Cf. Bishop, 2020 WL 977973, at *3.
Second, the motion is GRANTED IN PART insofar as Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any further actions against Defendants, their agents, or their counsel in any federal court or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia without first obtaining leave of this Court. In applying the relevant “guidelines, ” see In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 430-31 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam), the Court finds that: (a) for reasons mentioned above, Plaintiff has received sufficient notice and an opportunity to oppose the entry of a pre-filing injunction, see In re Powell, 851 F.2d at 431; Gharb v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., 148 F.Supp.3d 44, 56 (D.D.C. 2015); (b) Plaintiff previously filed three complaints in other courts duplicative of the Complaint in this action, see ECF No. 2, Exs. A-D, two of which were summarily dismissed, see ECF No. 3, Finnegan v. Sojourn LLC, No. 21-cv-00609-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2021); ECF No. 7, Finnegan v. Sojourn LLC, No. 21-cv-02686-SVW-PD (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021); Gharb, 148 F.Supp.3d at 56; Caldwell v. Obama, 6 F.Supp.3d 31, 50 (D.D.C. 2013); and (c) Plaintiff's purpose to harass Defendants through these lawsuits is shown by the duplicative nature of the conclusory complaints and by Plaintiff's recent suits filed against Defendants' counsel, see ECF No. 14-1, Exs. B & G; ECF No. 16, Exs. A-B; Gharb, 148 F.Supp.3d at 56. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any further actions against Defendants, their agents, or their counsel in any federal court or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia without first obtaining leave of this Court. If Plaintiff moves for such leave from this Court, he is ORDERED to include in such motion a copy of this order, a copy of the proposed filing, an explanation for why leave should be granted, and a certification under penalty of perjury that his proposed filing is neither frivolous nor submitted in bad faith. See, e.g., Caldwell, 6 F.Supp.3d at 52; U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Poblete, No. 15-cv-312 (BAH), 2017 WL 598471, at *9 (D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2017).
The Court also GRANTS Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 16, of the complaint and docket in Finnegan v. Quam-Wickham, No. 2021 CA 3202 B (D.C. Super. Ct.). See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)-(c); J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 2021); Terry v. Dewine, 75 F.Supp.3d 512, 525 (D.D.C. 2014).
Third, the motion is DENIED IN PART insofar as the Court will not order Plaintiff to dismiss any suit he has already filed against Defendants' counsel that is currently pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Defendants have the burden to show vexatious-litigant injunctive relief is warranted. See Duru v. Mitchell, 289 F.Supp.3d 112, 117 (D.D.C. 2018). Even presuming this Court has the inherent authority to grant this particular type of relief (though Defendants cite no authority for this point), the Court is unpersuaded that it should grant this relief pursuant to such inherent authority. Cf. In re Powell, 851 F.2d at 431.
This is a final appealable Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.