Finnegan v. Sojourn, LLC
Civil Action No. 2021-1878
| D.D.C. | Oct 20, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Sean Matthew Finnegan sued Sojourn, LLC and others; defendants moved to dismiss, for a pre-filing injunction, and to require dismissal of related suits in D.C. Superior Court.
- Plaintiff did not respond to the motion or to the Court’s orders to respond and to show cause.
- The Court dismissed Finnegan’s federal complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute.
- The Court issued a pre-filing injunction barring Finnegan from filing further actions against defendants, their agents, or counsel in federal court or D.C. Superior Court without first obtaining this Court’s leave (with specified filing requirements).
- The Court refused to order Finnegan to dismiss suits already pending in D.C. Superior Court, declining to exercise inherent authority to compel dismissal of those state-court cases.
- The Court granted defendants’ request for judicial notice of a D.C. Superior Court complaint and docket.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal complaint should be dismissed | Finnegan offered no opposition; the complaint alleges claims but failed to substantiate them | Defendants argued Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and raised failure to prosecute | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Iqbal) |
| Whether a pre-filing injunction is warranted | Finnegan did not oppose; no showing against injunction | Defendants argued Finnegan filed duplicative, harassing suits and sought leave requirement | Court enjoined future filings against defendants/agents/counsel in federal court and D.C. Superior Court absent leave of this Court (applying In re Powell factors) |
| Whether this Court may order Finnegan to dismiss pending D.C. Superior Court suits against defendants’ counsel | Finnegan did not respond in this case | Defendants sought an order forcing dismissal of those pending state-court actions | Denied; Court declined to exercise inherent authority to order dismissal of existing state-court suits; defendants bear burden to justify broader relief |
| Whether judicial notice of a D.C. Superior Court complaint/docket is appropriate | Not disputed by Finnegan | Defendants requested judicial notice under Rule 201 | Granted: Court took judicial notice of the complaint and docket entries cited |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal)
- In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (standards for pre-filing injunctions/vexatious litigant restraints)
- Gharb v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., 148 F. Supp. 3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015) (application of Powell factors in D.D.C.)
- Caldwell v. Obama, 6 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D.D.C. 2013) (pre-filing injunction procedural requirements)
- Duru v. Mitchell, 289 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D.D.C. 2018) (party seeking vexatious-litigant relief bears burden)
- J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2021) (judicial notice principles cited)
- Terry v. DeWine, 75 F. Supp. 3d 512 (D.D.C. 2014) (judicial notice of court records)