378 F. Supp. 3d 67
D.D.C.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ebonia Elliott-Lewis previously sued Abbott under the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute and for wrongful termination; qui tam/ statutory claims were dismissed, wrongful termination claims remained pending.
- Her counsel withdrew in 2018 and she proceeded pro se.
- While discovery was ongoing in the first (2014 termination) suit, Elliott-Lewis filed a second pro se complaint in March 2019 against Abbott asserting intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy based on three incidents: (1) her 2014 termination, (2) Abbott’s alleged misrepresentation to Massachusetts about the termination (affecting unemployment benefits), and (3) a February 2019 notice of a possible data breach.
- Abbott moved to dismiss the second complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as duplicative and for failure to state a claim.
- The court found claims tied to the 2014 termination and the alleged misrepresentation duplicative of the pending first action and dismissed them; it separately analyzed, and dismissed, claims based on the 2019 data-breach notice for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second suit is duplicative of the pending wrongful-termination action | Elliott-Lewis contends the claims belong in a new suit and arise from Abbott’s misconduct | Abbott argues the new claims arise from the same operative facts and are precluded/duplicative | Court: Claims arising from the 2014 termination and alleged misrepresentation are duplicative and dismissed |
| Appropriate remedy for claim-splitting | Implicitly sought to proceed with new action | Abbott sought dismissal of the second suit | Court exercised docket-control authority and dismissed duplicative claims rather than staying or consolidating |
| Whether claims based on the Feb. 2019 data-breach notice state intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress | Elliott-Lewis says breach and notice caused extreme emotional distress and was negligent/intentional retaliation | Abbott contends the notice was lawful, non-outrageous, and plaintiffs pleaded no plausible facts of negligence or intent | Court: Allegations insufficient; neither intentional nor negligent infliction of emotional distress pleaded plausibly; dismissed |
| Whether data-breach facts support an invasion-of-privacy claim | Elliott-Lewis alleges unlawful release of personal data | Abbott notes no facts showing intentional release or unauthorized access and that notice was required by law | Court: Pleading lacks facts of intentional or substantial/unreasonable invasion; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2008) (district courts may dismiss duplicative suits to manage their dockets)
- Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2011) (district courts have discretion to dismiss duplicative actions)
- Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) (options for handling duplicative suits include dismissal, stay, consolidation)
- Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2007) (claim preclusion and remedies for duplicative litigation)
- Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2010) (claim preclusion applies where later suit arises from same nucleus of operative facts)
- Polay v. McMahon, 10 N.E.3d 1122 (Mass. 2014) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Massachusetts law)
- Alicea v. Commonwealth, 993 N.E.2d 725 (Mass. 2013) (elements for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Massachusetts law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 8)
- Nelson v. Salem State Coll., 845 N.E.2d 338 (Mass. 2006) (invasion of privacy requires substantial and unreasonable intrusion)