1
FILED IN THE
2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Mar 03, 2026
3
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7 PRAVEEN KEVIN KHURANA,
NO. 2:25-CV-0430-TOR
8 Appellant,
ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE
9 v. AS DUPLICATIVE
10 CITY OF LEWISTON, et al.,
11 Appellees.
12 BEFORE THE COURT is Appellant’s Bankruptcy Appeal (ECF No. 1).
13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158, this Court has jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals
14 from final judgments, interlocutory orders under 11 U.S.C. § 1121, and with leave
15 of the Court, from other interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).
16 Appellant filed numerous appeals for the same bankruptcy case. ECF No. 1.
17 Plaintiffs “generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the
18 same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same
19 defendant.’” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th
20 Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Taylor v.
1 Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). To determine when an action is duplicative of prior
2 litigation, the Ninth Circuit uses “the transaction test, developed in the context of
3 claim preclusion.” Id. at 689. In applying the transaction test, courts examine four
4 criteria:
5 (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would
be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2)
6 whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions;
(3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and
7 (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of
facts.
8
9 Id. at 689.
10 This appeal results from the same bankruptcy case multiple other cases. In
11 re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0461-TOR, In re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0430, In re: Khurana,
12 2:25-cv-00431, In re Khurana, 2:25-cv-00432, etc. While some of the appeal
13 notices refer to different or additional issues or orders, they arise from the same
14 bankruptcy case. The outcome of In re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0374-TOR would affect
15 the outcome of this case and related cases. For these reasons, the case is
16 duplicative and must be dismissed. However, if Appellant wishes to add, modify,
17 or remove information or issues, Appellant must pursue this in the original case not
18 in duplicative matters.
19 /
20 /
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2 1. This case is DISMISSED as duplicative of the case at 2:25-cv-0347-
3 TOR.
4 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
5 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish
6|| copies to counsel.
7 DATED March 3, 2026.
<> United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.