Reyna v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

Oct 2, 2026
1:26-cv-10024
Reporters:
Before:
Donald L. Cabell

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, ORDER TO REASSIGN TO A DISTRICT JUDGE AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL

CABELL, U.S.M.J.

In this action, pro se plaintiff Joseph Reyna alleges that American Honda Motor Company collects “vehicle-generated telemetry data,” and that “over time, the scope, retention, and downstream use of that data [has] materially expanded without renewed or informed consent.” Compl. at 4. Reyna also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court GRANTS.

This action appears to be duplicative of Reyna v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., C.A. No. 26-10015-WGY (D. Mass.), in which Reyna has filed a fulsome amended complaint on May 1, 2026. A summons issued in that action on June 9, 2026.

A federal district court is “under no obligation to maintain multiple versions of the same action on its docket,” and, drawing up on its inherent authority to manage its own docket, the court may dismiss an action “to allow the issues under dispute to be resolved in the substantially identical action pending.” Wiggins v. State of Conn., 205 F.3d 1327 (Table), 2000 WL 19094, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 2000); see also Patterson v. UnitedHealth Grp. Inc., 161 F.4th 415, 426 (6th Cir. 2025) (“[D]istrict courts enjoy the discretion over their dockets to dismiss duplicate cases.“)

Here, the Court does not see any difference between the claims in this action and those raised Reyna v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., C.A. No. 26-10015-WGY (D. Mass.) that would justify allowing each lawsuit to go forward separately.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this action be reassigned to a District Judge. The Court RECOMMENDS1 to the District Judge to whom the action is assigned that the action be DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative of Reyna v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., C.A. No. 26-10015-WGY (D. Mass.).

So ordered.

/s/ Donald L. Cabell

DONALD L. CABELL, U.S.M.J.

DATED: October 2, 2026

Notes

1
The parties are advised that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party who objects to this recommendation must file specific written objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party‘s receipt of this Report and Recommendation. The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The parties are further advised that the First Circuit has repeatedly indicated that failure to comply with Rule 72(b) will preclude further appellate review of the District Court‘s order based on this Report and Recommendation. See Keating v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Emiliano Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986); Scott v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir. 1983).