Praveen Kevin Khurana v. City of Lewiston, et al. - Bankruptcy Appeal Dismissed
Summary
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed a bankruptcy appeal filed by Praveen Kevin Khurana as duplicative. The court cited the principle that a party cannot maintain multiple actions on the same subject matter in the same court.
What changed
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, in the case of Praveen Kevin Khurana v. City of Lewiston, et al., has dismissed the appellant's bankruptcy appeal (ECF No. 1) on the grounds that it is duplicative of another appeal concerning the same bankruptcy case. The court referenced the principle that a party generally cannot maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter simultaneously in the same court.
This dismissal means the appellant's current appeal will not proceed. Regulated entities involved in bankruptcy proceedings should ensure that all related appeals or actions concerning the same underlying bankruptcy case are consolidated or properly managed to avoid dismissal on grounds of duplication. Failure to do so could result in the loss of the right to pursue claims or appeals.
What to do next
- Review existing bankruptcy appeals for duplication and consolidate if necessary.
- Ensure all filings related to a single bankruptcy case are properly identified and managed to avoid procedural dismissal.
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. City of Lewiston, et al.
District Court, E.D. Washington
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00430
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
1
FILED IN THE
2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Mar 03, 2026
3
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7 PRAVEEN KEVIN KHURANA,
NO. 2:25-CV-0430-TOR
8 Appellant,
ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE
9 v. AS DUPLICATIVE
10 CITY OF LEWISTON, et al.,
11 Appellees.
12 BEFORE THE COURT is Appellant’s Bankruptcy Appeal (ECF No. 1).
13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158, this Court has jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals
14 from final judgments, interlocutory orders under 11 U.S.C. § 1121, and with leave
15 of the Court, from other interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a).
16 Appellant filed numerous appeals for the same bankruptcy case. ECF No. 1.
17 Plaintiffs “generally have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the
18 same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same
19 defendant.’” Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th
20 Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Taylor v.
1 Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). To determine when an action is duplicative of prior
2 litigation, the Ninth Circuit uses “the transaction test, developed in the context of
3 claim preclusion.” Id. at 689. In applying the transaction test, courts examine four
4 criteria:
5 (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would
be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2)
6 whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions;
(3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and
7 (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of
facts.
8
9 Id. at 689.
10 This appeal results from the same bankruptcy case multiple other cases. In
11 re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0461-TOR, In re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0430, In re: Khurana,
12 2:25-cv-00431, In re Khurana, 2:25-cv-00432, etc. While some of the appeal
13 notices refer to different or additional issues or orders, they arise from the same
14 bankruptcy case. The outcome of In re: Khurana, 2:25-cv-0374-TOR would affect
15 the outcome of this case and related cases. For these reasons, the case is
16 duplicative and must be dismissed. However, if Appellant wishes to add, modify,
17 or remove information or issues, Appellant must pursue this in the original case not
18 in duplicative matters.
19 /
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.