Praveen Kevin Khurana v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company - Case Dismissed as Duplicative
Summary
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed the bankruptcy appeal case 2:25-cv-00461 as duplicative. The court found that the appellant had filed multiple appeals for the same bankruptcy case, violating the principle against maintaining two separate actions involving the same subject matter.
What changed
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, in case number 2:25-cv-00461, has dismissed an appellant's bankruptcy appeal as duplicative. The court noted that the appellant had filed numerous appeals concerning the same bankruptcy case, which is contrary to the legal principle preventing the maintenance of multiple actions on the same subject matter simultaneously. This dismissal pertains to the specific appeal filed on March 3, 2026.
This ruling means the case is closed and no further action will be taken on this particular appeal. Regulated entities involved in bankruptcy proceedings should ensure that all appeals related to a single case are consolidated and properly filed to avoid dismissal. Failure to adhere to procedural rules regarding duplicative filings can result in the loss of the right to appeal.
What to do next
- Ensure all bankruptcy appeals are consolidated and filed appropriately to avoid duplicative actions.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Praveen Kevin Khurana v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, et al.
District Court, E.D. Washington
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00461
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
1
2 FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3 Mar 03, 2026
4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7 PRAVEEN KEVIN KHURANA,
NO. 2:25-CV-0461-TOR
8 Appellant,
ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE
9 v. AS DUPLICATIVE
10 AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
11
Appellees.
12
13 BEFORE THE COURT is Appellant’s Bankruptcy Appeal (ECF No. 1).
14 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158, this Court has jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals
15 from final judgments, interlocutory orders under 11 U.S.C. § 1121, and with leave
16 of the Court, from other interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a).
17 Appellant filed numerous appeals for the same bankruptcy case. ECF No. 1.
18 Plaintiffs “generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the
19 same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same
20 defendant.’” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th
1 Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Taylor v.
2 Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). To determine when an action is duplicative of prior
3 litigation, the Ninth Circuit uses “the transaction test, developed in the context of
4 claim preclusion.” Id. at 689. In applying the transaction test, courts examine four
5 criteria:
6 (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would
be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2)
7 whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions;
(3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and
8 (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of
facts.
9
10 Id. at 689.
11 This appeal results from the same bankruptcy case as multiple other district
12 court cases: In re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0461-TOR, In re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0430, In
13 re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-00431, In re Khurana, 2:25-cv-00432, etc. While some of
14 the appeal notices refer to different or additional issues or orders, they arise from
15 the same bankruptcy case. The outcome of In re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0374-TOR
16 would affect the outcome of this case and related cases. For these reasons, the case
17 is duplicative and must be dismissed. However, if Appellant wishes to add,
18 modify, or remove information or issues, Appellant must pursue this in the original
19 case not in duplicative matters.
20
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2 1. This case is DISMISSED as duplicative of the case at 2:25-cv-0347-
3 TOR.
4 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
5 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish
6|| copies to counsel.
7 DATED March 3, 2026.
<> United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when EDWA Opinions publishes new changes.