In re: Khurana

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Jan 23, 2026 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 PRAVEEN KEVIN KHURANA, NO. 2:25-CV-0432-TOR 8 Appellant, ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE 9 v. AS DUPLICATIVE 10 AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 11 Appellees. 12 BEFORE THE COURT is Appellant’s duplicate appeal. This Court has 13 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158, this Court has jurisdiction over bankruptcy 14 appeals for final judgments, interlocutory orders and leave of the Court for other 15 interlocutory appeals. 28 U.S.C. 158(a). 16 Plaintiffs “generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions 17 involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against 18 the same defendant.’” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 19 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by 20 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). To determine when an action is duplicative of prior litigation, the Ninth Circuit uses “the transaction test, 2 || developed in the context of claim preclusion.” Jd. at 689. In applying the 3 || transaction test, courts examine four criteria: 4 (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) 5 whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same 6 right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. 7 8 || Id. at 689. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. This case is DISMISSED as duplicative of the case at 2:25-CV-0430- 11 TOR. 12 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 13 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and Judgment, 14]| and furnish copies to the parties. 15 DATED January 23, 2026 << United States District Judge 18 19 20