UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Ow en F . Silvi ous, P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 10-0639 (JD B) Ungar’s F ood Pr oducts Inc., et al. , Defendan ts.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION In this civil action removed f rom the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, plaintiff, proc eeding pro se , sues two New J erse y -base d food produc t companies unde r the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedur es Ac t (“CPPA”), D.C. Code § 38-3901 et seq . He c laims “on beha lf of the g ener al public, including himself” that def endants made “fa lse and misleadingstatements” on the pa ckag e labe ls of cer tain products sold betwe en May 30, 2000 and August 31, 2007. Am. Compl . [Dkt. No. 19] ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleg es that “he only consumed the potato cakes” dur ing that time period, id . ¶ 5, but he see ks $5 mill ion in monetary damag es “in favor of the g ener al public,” id . ¶ 17. Plaintiff define s the g ener al public as a ny one who resided in, wor

ked in or visited the District of Columbia duringthe re levant time per iod. Id
. ¶ 13. Def

endants move to dismiss or to stay this action pendingthe conc lusion of Elias v. Ungar’s Food Products, Inc

. , Civ. Action No. 06-2448 (KSH), a class ac tion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey . Upon consider ation of the pa rties’ submissions, and in the intere st of judicial comity , the Court will gr ant def endants’ motion to dismiss
.Def endants prope rly

remove d this action pursuant to the Class Action Fa irness Ac t, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). SeeOrde r of June 22, 2010 [Dkt. No. 10] . They now see k to dismi ss the 1

case or to stay

these proc eeding s beca

use the a lleg ations of the cur rent c omplaint are substantially

the same a s those supporting the nationwide cla ss action pendingsince May 2006 in the District of Ne w J erse y . The Elias class consists of “[a]ll persons in the United States” who purcha sed the same products that ar e the subjec t of plaintiff’s c omplaint. SeeNotice of Removal [Dkt. 1] , Ex . C (Class Notice); see also Am. Compl. ¶ 8. Although plaintiff a lleg es that he opte d out of the Elias class, Am. Compl. ¶ 12, he has pr ovided no documentation to refute de fenda nts’ evidenc e to the contr ary . SeeDef s.’ Reply Mem. of P. & A . in Furthe r Support of Cross-Motion to Dismiss or Stay

the Action and in Opp’ n to Pl.’s R equest for Def ault, Ex . A (Reply Certification of J ames H. G ianninoto ¶ 3). More over, e ven if plaintiff ha d opted out of the c lass, he ca nnot press cla ims, as he does he re, on be half of a ny one else
. See28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the par ties may plead a nd conduct their

own ca ses per sonally

or by counsel. . . .” ); Georgiades v . Martin-Trigona , 729 F.2d 831, 834 ( D.C. Cir. 1984) (noting that a lay person c annot appe ar a s counsel for others); Oxe ndine v. W

illiams , 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 ( 4 t h Cir. 1975) (per

curiam) (" Ability

to protect the inter ests of the c lass depends in pa rt on the quality of counse l, and we c onsider the c ompetence of a la y man re prese nting himself to be clea rly too limi ted to allow him to risk the rig hts of others." ) (c itation omit ted).

Plaintiff contends that this action is not a class a ction, but his alleg ations and dema nd 1 for r elief be lie this contention. Moreover , plaintiff admits that he “discove red the [claimed] violations by

a L eg al Notice published in the U SA Today Newspa per dated Fe bruar

y 17, 2009,” Am. Compl. ¶ 12, and hence defe ndants corr ectly char acte rize this action as a “ copycat” Elias action. De fs.’ Statement of P. & A. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to R emand and in Support of CrossMot. to Dismi ss or Stay

the Action [Dkt. No. 9] at 1.

2“As be tween f eder al district courts, [] though no pr ecise rule ha s evolved, the g ener al principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Colorado River W ater Conservation Dist. v. U. S ., 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (c itations omi tted); see Nat’l Family Planning and Reproduc tive Health Ass’n v. Sullivan , 1991 WL345629 * 2 (D.D.C., Oc t. 5, 1992) (“T his principle of judicial comity is derived f

rom the policies fa

voringthe conse rvation of judicial r esourc es as we ll as providing for the c omprehe nsive dispositi on of litigation before the fe dera l courts.”) (citations omitted). Moreove r, plaintiff ha s made it clea r that this Court is not his choice of forum. See Pl.’s Moti on to Remand [Dkt. No. 7] ; Pl.’s R eply to Defs.’ Cross-Motion to Dism iss or Stay the Action at 7 (se ekingimmediate re mand to Superior Court “be cause plaintiff has only stated a
cause of ac tion under state law and the a ction was not filed a s a putative or pur ported c lass action”)
. Henc e, plaintiff c annot proc eed on be half of a class, this Court will avoid dupli cative litigation by

defe rringto another f

eder al cour

t, and plaintiff only

has non-f

eder al claims on his own beha lf. Under

those circ umstances, plaintiff c annot proc eed w ith this case in any event, a nd will not be allowed to proc eed he re on a rec onstructed c omplaint. Theref ore, the Court will gra

nt defe ndants’ motion to dism iss but will dismiss the ca se without prejudice
. A sepa rate Orde r 2

acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

s/ J OHN D. B ATES Dated: August 24, 2010 United States District J udg e
Def endants a lso seek an or der e njoining plaintiff f rom filing f

urther a ctions, see Def

s.’ 2 Reply at 13-15, but plaintiff ha s not filed any actions in this Court, and this C ourt lacks a uthority to bar him from filingcase s in Superior Court.
3