Lockey v. Carson
Civil Action No. 2020-3193
D.D.C.Jun 17, 2021Background
- Lockey and partner Craig MacKenzie sought to redevelop a Dallas office building into low-income housing; the project failed and spawned multiple administrative complaints and lawsuits.
- Lockey and MacKenzie brought an FHA complaint to HUD and a qui tam False Claims Act suit in the Northern District of Texas; the qui tam was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and the dismissal was affirmed.
- MacKenzie separately sued HUD/DOJ in Texas and later in D.D.C.; the D.D.C. court dismissed his later suit on res judicata/collateral estoppel grounds.
- Lockey filed a suit in the Southern District of California, which transferred the case to the Northern District of Texas; at Lockey’s request the Northern District stayed and administratively closed the transferred case (i.e., put it on inactive status).
- Without moving to lift the stay or dismiss the Texas case, Lockey filed an essentially identical complaint in D.D.C.; the Government moved to dismiss as duplicative and for lack of jurisdiction.
- The D.D.C. court held the Texas case remained pending (administrative closure = stay), found the D.D.C. action duplicative, determined the Northern District of Texas was the proper forum, denied Lockey leave to file a sur-reply, and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss on discretionary, comity, and forum grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.D.C. should dismiss this action as duplicative of a pending Texas case | Lockey argued the Texas case was closed, so D.D.C. may hear his claims | Govt. argued the Texas case remains pending and this D.D.C. filing is an improper refiling of the same claims | Court dismissed the D.D.C. action as duplicative and exercised discretion to defer to the earlier-filed Texas proceeding |
| Effect of an "administrative closure" | Lockey said administrative closure meant the Texas case was closed | Govt. said administrative closure is equivalent to a stay and the Texas case is still pending | Court agreed administrative closure = stay; the Texas case remains pending |
| Forum appropriateness / first-to-file and comity | Lockey implicitly favored D.D.C.; he contested only that the prior case was closed | Govt. and prior transfer ruling showed most events occurred in Texas; Northern District is more familiar and appropriate | Court found Northern District of Texas the more appropriate forum and applied comity/first-to-file principles to dismiss here |
| Motion for leave to file a sur-reply (re: Mire and administrative-closure authority) | Lockey sought leave to file a sur-reply to distinguish Mire and argue administrative closure differs when arbitration is involved | Govt. said no new arguments warranted a sur-reply and Mire applies beyond arbitration | Court denied leave to file; held Mire and related authorities show stayed/administratively closed cases remain active and Lockey’s distinctions lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (federal courts should avoid duplicative litigation and may, in limited circumstances, abstain in favor of parallel proceedings)
- Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat’l Bank, 525 F.2d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (sound judicial administration counsels against separate proceedings of identical issues)
- UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab., 685 F.3d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (the first-filed action generally proceeds first absent equitable considerations)
- Handy v. Shaw, 325 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (district courts have discretion to dismiss duplicative cases and equitable factors can override first-to-file)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (court may choose among threshold grounds to dismiss an action)
- Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2004) (administrative closure is equivalent to a stay; stayed-but-not-closed cases remain active)
- St. Marks Place Hous. Co. v. HUD, 610 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing Mire to explain administratively closed cases are not appealable final judgments)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed)
- Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (courts should assess pro se complaints in light of all filings, including responsive pleadings)