1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Justin S. BECK, Case No.: 23-cv-0164-AGS-DDL

5 Plaintiff,

ORDER:

6 v. (1) DISMISSING SECOND 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF 38)

8 Defendants. WITH PREJUDICE;

9 (2) DENYING AS MOOT ALL 10 PENDING MOTIONS (ECF 39, 40, 41, 42); AND 11

12 (3) CLOSING CASE 13 14 “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the 15 same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” 16 Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union Int’l, 30 F.4th 879, 886 (9th Cir. 2022) (quotation 17 marks omitted). Accordingly, plaintiff Justin Beck’s complaint must be dismissed. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Beck’s second amended complaint, like his first, is largely unintelligible. (See 20 ECF 37, at 3) (finding Beck’s first amended complaint “nearly impossible to follow and 21 far from simple, concise, and direct”). As far as the Court can tell, this case arises from a 22 derivative shareholder action against Beck filed by defendant Kenneth Catanzarite as part 23 of a “fraudulent scheme.” (ECF 38, at 17.) Beck reported Catanzarite to the California State 24 Bar (another defendant), but it declined to investigate because it was allegedly “protect[ing] 25 Catanzarite’s schemes.” (Id. at 19.) Beck then “filed [a] Government Claims Act suit” in 26 Orange County Superior Court, but the court “refus[ed] to place that case on a docket or 27 accept filings . . . at the alleged corrupt control of the State Bar of California.” (Id. at 6.) 28 1 Beck brings various federal antitrust and racketeering claims and requests millions 2 in damages. (See generally id.) This action is the second of three pending in this Court, the 3 first having been filed in 2022. See Beck v. Catanzarite Law Corp., 22-cv-1616-AGS-DDL 4 (S.D. Cal. 2022); Beck v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 23-cv-0882-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal. 2023). 5 DISCUSSION 6 District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and dismiss duplicative 7 cases. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); Colo. River Water 8 Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (“As between federal district 9 courts . . . the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.”). A second suit is 10 duplicative if it “involves (1) the same causes of action as the first; and (2) the same parties 11 or their privies.” Mendoza, 30 F.4th at 886. The second prong is easily satisfied, as the 12 defendants in this action are also defendants in the 2022 case. Compare Beck v. Catanzarite 13 Law Corp., 22-cv-1616-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal. 2022) ECF 37, with ECF 38. Thus, the first 14 prong is dispositive. 15 In determining whether two suits involve the same causes of action, courts consider 16 four factors: 17 (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether 18 substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether 19 the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. 20

21 Mendoza, 30 F.4th at 887. The “most important” factor is the last. Id. 22 All these factors suggest that this case and its 2022 counterpart involve the same 23 causes of action, even if they are somewhat differently titled. Take the most important 24 factor—the “transactional nucleus of facts.” While the 2022 complaint is just as opaque as 25 the current one, both seem to arise from the same underlying concepts. The 2022 complaint 26 charges Catanzarite with bringing a “false derivative action” and the State Bar with 27 “conceal[ing] criminal conduct.” (ECF 37, at 11, 13.) The 2022 complaint also includes 28 narratives about the “Orange County Superior Court enterprise” and the “obstruct[ion]” of 1 || Beck’s “Government Claims Act litigation.” (/d. at 44, 46.) Given that “core overlap,” the 2 ||other three factors are also satisfied: “the two suits involve ‘infringement of the same 3 ||right’”; “litigation of the suits would involve ‘substantially the same evidence’”; and 4 “continued litigation of a second suit could impair any ‘rights or interests’ that might be 5 || established in a judgment in the first.” Mendoza, 30 F.4th at 887. 6 Consequently, Beck’s second amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH 7 ||PREJUDICE as duplicative. And all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The 8 || Clerk is directed to close this case. 9 || Dated: February 26, 2024 10 A f. 11 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28