Sample v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DWAYNE SAMPLE,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 25cv984 WJ/SCY
HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC.,
PARKS HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS (PHH), and
HILTON OF SANTA FE,
Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint, originally
filed in state court. Doc. 1-1. Defendants removed this case to federal court, and the Court finds
Defendants have satisfied the requirements of diversity jurisdiction in the amended notice of
removal. Doc. 61. Plaintiff alleges that on November 26, 2023, Hilton staff evicted him from his
hotel room on the basis of his disability. Doc. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff further attached a letter addressed
to Santa Fe Historical Plaza Hilton in Santa Fe, alleging: “An employee, Peter Messerer (acting
Manager), approached me and stated that me, my wife, and service animal need to get the fuck
out and take your service animal with you.” Id. at 5.
Through counsel, Plaintiff previously filed another case which appears to arise from the
same facts giving rise to this case. See Sample v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., No. 23cv-865
SMD-KRS (“Sample I”). The amended complaint in Sample I alleges that on November 26,
2022, Plaintiff Dwayne Sample and his wife stayed with their service dog at the Hilton Santa Fe
Historic Plaza, located at 100 Sandoval Street, Santa Fe. Sample I, Amend. Compl., Doc. 9 ¶¶ 18,
20. Hilton staff removed the dog from Plaintiffs’ hotel room while they were gone. Id. ¶ 28. As
Case 1:25-cv-00984-WJ-SCY Document 68 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiffs retrieved their dog and exited the hotel, manager Peter Messerer yelled to Plaintiffs,
“Now that you got your service dog, get the fuck off my property!” Id. ¶¶ 36-37.
In other words, except for the year of the occurrence, the allegations are essentially
identical in the present Complaint and in Sample I. Given that the factual allegations are so
identical, it is more likely that Plaintiff made a typo in the date than that these are two separate
transactions or occurrences.
“District courts have discretion to control their dockets by dismissing duplicative cases.”
Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Colo. River Water Conservation
Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (“As between federal district courts . . . though
no precise rule has evolved, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.”)). “District
courts are accorded a great deal of latitude and discretion in determining whether one action is
duplicative of another, but generally, a suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available
relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Park v. TD Ameritrade Trust Co., Inc.,
461 F. App’x 753, 755 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223
(7th Cir. 1993)).
The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case
because it is duplicative of Sample I. If Plaintiff asserts the Court should not dismiss this case as
duplicative of Sample I, Plaintiff’s response must clearly indicate any significant differences
between the Complaint in this case and the amended complaint in Sample I. The Court warns
Plaintiff that his desire to add a different Hilton entity as a defendant is not sufficient justification
for filing duplicative lawsuits. If Plaintiff wishes to name as a defendant another Hilton entity
responsible for operating the Hilton Santa Fe Historic Plaza hotel, Plaintiff must seek to amend
the complaint in Sample I. Indeed, Plaintiff has done just that—a pending motion to amend in
Case 1:25-cv-00984-WJ-SCY Document 68 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Sample I seeks to add the currently named defendant here, Hilton Worldwide. Sample I, No.
23cv-865, Docs. 85 & 87. Those motions are still pending.
The Court further warns Plaintiff that repeatedly filing duplicative complaints about the
same transaction or occurrence may subject Plaintiff to sanctions, including filing restrictions.
Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“[T]he right of access to the
courts is neither absolute nor unconditional and there is no constitutional right of access to the
courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.”).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, show cause
why the Court should not dismiss this case. Failure to timely show cause may result in dismissal
of this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may, but are not required to, file a
response to Plaintiff’s written show cause response. Such response should be filed with 14 days
of service of Plaintiff’s response.
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00984-WJ-SCY Document 68 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3