Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.

Background

Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester sued Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.; Penn South Cooperative Federal Credit Union; Penn South Social Services, Inc.; Carmen Santiago, also known as Carmen Angelico; Brendan Keany; and other named and unnamed defendants. The case arose from Mutual’s failure to offer the plaintiffs a Mitchell-Lama apartment in 2012. The opinion states that the plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on age, religion, familial status, source of income, race, and other protected categories, as well as breach of contract, civil-rights violations, and related state-law claims.

Earlier Cases

The plaintiffs filed a first federal case in 2014 against Mutual, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the credit union, and 21 individuals. That case included 16 causes of action based on the same 2012 apartment application. In 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint. The first case remained ongoing.

The plaintiffs filed a second case in New York state court in 2017, which was later removed to federal court. It involved essentially the same defendants, facts, and claims, although it added allegations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. On June 5, 2019, the court dismissed that second case as duplicative of the first.

The plaintiffs filed this third case in October 2019. The court stated that it alleged claims identical to those in the first and second cases and named virtually the same defendants. The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—that is, to explain—why the third case should not be dismissed as duplicative. The plaintiffs requested, and received, an extension until December 11, 2019, but did not respond by December 16, 2019.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed the case for two independent reasons. First, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or fails to comply with a court order. The court also stated that it has inherent authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute without a defendant’s request. Because the plaintiffs did not respond to the show-cause order even after receiving an extension, the court exercised that authority.

Second, the court concluded that the case was duplicative. A federal district court may stay or dismiss a lawsuit that repeats another federal lawsuit. The court explained that plaintiffs may not maintain two actions on the same subject against the same defendants at the same time or file duplicate complaints to expand their legal rights. It found that the third case involved essentially the same factual background and legal questions as the earlier cases.

The court also addressed the presence of defendants who were not currently defendants in the first case. The credit union had been dismissed from the first case, and Penn South Social Services, Inc. had been subpoenaed there. The court concluded that suing the credit union again and suing Penn South Social Services after discovery issues in the first case were not resolved were improper attempts to expand the plaintiffs’ legal rights. After considering the circumstances, including that the first case was still pending and that this was the plaintiffs’ third action, the court found dismissal appropriate.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres ordered that the case be DISMISSED for (1) failure to prosecute and (2) duplication of the first and second cases. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail the order to the plaintiffs without lawyers. The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ continuing prosecution of the first case.