Schenk v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SHANAH A. BRODY,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
SHANAH A. BRODY,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
LARS A. BRENNAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
LARS A. BRENNAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 22-00482 HG-WRP
Civ. No. 23-00046 HG-WRP
Civ. No. 22-00481 HG-WRP
Civ. No. 23-00047 HG-WRP
Civ. No. 22-00484 HG-WRP
Civ. No. 23-00048 HG-WRP
Civ. No. 22-00483 HG-WRP
Civ. No. 23-00049 HG-WRP
1
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
LEIANAH M.M. KAHAHAWAI,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
LEIANAH M.M. KAHAHAWAI,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
NOAH I.M. SCHENK,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
NOAH I.M. SCHENK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 2 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiff,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER DISMISSING DUPLICATE CASES
Each of the individual Plaintiffs has two cases pending in
federal court against Defendants Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and
Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. Each of the cases asserts identical
causes of action about the same subject-matter.
Each Plaintiff filed a case in the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii, while also filing a duplicate
case in Hawaii state court. Each state court case was removed by
Defendants.
On April 14, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause
Why The Duplicate Cases Should Not Be Dismissed. The Court
stated its intention to dismiss the removed cases (23-cv-00046,
23-cv-00047, 23-cv-00048, and 23-cv-00049) that were originally
filed in Hawaii state court pursuant to the first-to-file rule.
On April 28, 2023, Defendants Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and
Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. filed Statements Of No Opposition to
Dismissal.
Also on April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Objections. The
3
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 3 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

sole basis for the objection is that Plaintiffs intend to
maintain parallel cases in both state and federal court.
ANALYSIS
I. First-To-File Doctrine
The first-to-file rule is a generally recognized doctrine of
federal comity permitting a district court to decline
jurisdiction over an action. Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh
Vegetables, Inc., 967 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1292 (N.D. Cal. 2013). The
rule is meant to alleviate the burden placed on the federal
judiciary by duplicate litigation. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld
Prods. Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991).
Courts analyze three factors in determining whether to apply
the first-to-file rule:
(1) chronology of the actions;
(2) similarity of the parties; and
(3) similarity of the issues.
Schwartz v. Frito-Lay N. Am., 2012 WL 8147135, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 12, 2012) (citing Alltrade, Inc., 946 F.2d at 625)).
Here, each Plaintiff filed one case originally in federal
court and a duplicate case in Hawaii state court, which was later
removed.
First, the Court analyzes the chronology of the actions.
All of the complaints were filed on November 10, 2022. The
complaints originally filed in Hawaii state court were all
4
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 4 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

removed to the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii on January 26, 2023.
Second, the Court recognizes that the Parties in the
parallel cases are not just similar, but they are identical and
the Parties are represented by the same attorneys.
Third, the legal issues in the operative complaints are also
identical. Each case involves identical issues relating to
employment-related claims against Hawaiian Airlines related to
its COVID-19 policies.
The Court recognizes that the first-to-file doctrine is
usually applied where the cases involve two different districts
or two different judges. The circumstances here, and in some
other instances, support applying the first-to-file rule to cases
filed in the same federal district. See Gatlin v. United Parcel
Service, Inc., 2018 WL 10161198, *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018).
The first-to-file rule is necessary in this instance as the
cases involve identical parties and identical claims.
Plaintiffs did not address the first-to-file doctrine in its
response to the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated any basis for maintaining two identical actions with
two different docket numbers for matters involving identical
parties in the same court.
Instead, Plaintiffs argue that they should be permitted to
forum shop. Plaintiffs state that they would like to amend their
5
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 5 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

complaints in the removed cases, request that this Court then
allow them to remand these cases back to Hawaii state court, and
allow them to proceed on their claims in state court at the same
time as maintaining the parallel claims in the duplicate federal
court actions.
II. Colorado River Doctrine
Pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v.
United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976), a federal district court
may dismiss an action involving concurrent proceedings in a
separate court system in order to conserve judicial resources.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that “there are principles
unrelated to considerations of proper constitutional adjudication
and regard for federal-state relations which govern in situations
involving the contemporaneous exercise of concurrent
jurisdictions, either by federal courts or by state and federal
courts.” Id.
A district court may dismiss a suit in the presence of a
concurrent parallel proceeding in the interest of “wise judicial
administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial
resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” Id. at
817-18.
Plaintiffs appear to be forum shopping. Engaging in
identical, parallel litigation in both state and federal court is
6
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 6 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

not permitted pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine.
The Court reviews numerous factors in evaluating the
Colorado River doctrine including the desire to avoid piecemeal
litigation, the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction,
and the similarity of the proceedings. United States v. State
Water Res. Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2021).
Here, the proceedings are identical. The operative
complaints involve identical parties and identical legal issues.
Plaintiffs provide no basis to allow them to maintain two
identical actions in federal court. Plaintiffs request that the
Court remand the removed cases to Hawaii State Court. Plaintiffs
argue that they should be allowed to maintain one action in
federal court and another in state court.
Forum shopping and gamesmanship support dismissal of the
duplicate proceeding. R.R. Street & Co., Inc. v. Transport Ins.
Co., 656 F.3d 966, 979 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding the district
court did not err in dismissing a parallel proceeding under
Colorado River). It has long been held that “federal courts may
properly take measures to discourage forum shopping.” Rutherford
v. Econolodge, 2019 WL 950329, *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019)
(citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 467-68 (1965)). The
interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute
exceptional circumstances to allow a court to decline
jurisdiction in some instances. Cty. of Chicago v. Int’l College
7
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 7 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73 (1997).
The Court declines to remand the removed cases to state
court. Dismissal of the removed cases is appropriate in the
interests of comity, to avoid piecemeal litigation, and to
discourage gamesmanship and forum shopping. R.R. Street & Co.,
Inc., 656 F.3d at 984.
Plaintiffs’ duplicate removed cases 23-cv-00046, 23-cv-
00047, 23-cv-00048, and 23-cv-00049 are DISMISSED.
CONCLUSION
The following cases are DISMISSED:
(1) Shanah A. Brody v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc; Hawaiian
Holdings, Inc., 23-cv-00046 HG-WRP;
(2) Lars A. Brennan v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Hawaiian
Holdings, Inc., 23-cv-00047 HG-WRP;
(3) Leianah M.M. Kahahawai v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Hawaiian
Holdings, Inc., 23-cv-00048 HG-WRP, and
(4) Noah I.M. Schenk v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Hawaiian
Holdings, Inc., 23-cv-00049 HG-WRP
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 10, 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Brody v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., et al., 22-cv-00482 HG-WRP,
23-cv-00046-HG-WRP; Brennan v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., et al.,
22-cv-00481 HG-WRP, 23-cv-00047 HG-WRP; Kahahawai v. Hawaiian
Airlines Inc., et al., 22-cv-00484-HG-WRP, 23-cv-00048 HG-WRP;
Schenk v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., et al., 22-cv-00483-HG-WRP, 23-
cv-00049 HG-WRP; ORDER DISMISSING DUPLICATE CASES
8
Case 1:22-cv-00483-HG-WRP Document 26 Filed 05/10/23 Page 8 of 8
PageID.<pageID>