GRIMALDI DEEP SEA S.P.A.
v.
SSA ATLANTIC LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court issued an order to show cause in a case where plaintiff Grimaldi Deep Sea filed a complaint that is nearly identical to an amended complaint in a previously pending action against the same defendant involving the same subject matter. The court applied the Eleventh Circuit's rule prohibiting a plaintiff from maintaining two separate actions involving the same subject matter, parties, and defendant simultaneously in the same court.
The court determined that the Eleventh Circuit's rule prohibits a plaintiff from maintaining two separate actions involving the same subject matter, at the same time, in the same court, against the same defendant, and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the duplicate action should not be dismissed.
[1] A court may sua sponte dismiss a duplicate action pending before it.
[2] A plaintiff may not maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter, at the same time, in the same court, against the same defendant.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Eleventh Circuit has 'adopted a rule against a plaintiff maintaining two separate actions involving the same subject matter, at the same time, in the same court, against the same defendant.'”
Establishes the governing legal rule that prohibits duplicative litigation in the same court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Grimaldi Deep Sea S.p.A. initiated this action on June 3, 2025, against defendant SSA Atlantic LLC. The complaint filed in this case (No. 3:…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 3, 2025. See Complaint (Doc. 1). Upon review, the Complaint is nearly identical to, if not an exact duplicate of, the operative pleading in Grimaldi Deep Sea S.p.A. v. SSA Atlantic LLC, No. 3:24-cv-562-MMH-SJH, which is currently pending before the Court. Compare Complaint, with Amended Complaint (3:24-cv-562-MMH-SJH Doc. 22), filed on April 10, 2025. The Eleventh Circuit has “adopted a rule against a plaintiff maintaining two separate actions involving the same subject matter, at the same time, in the same court, against the same defendant.” See Rumbough v. Comenity Cap. Bank, 748 F. App'x 253, 255 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Vanover v. NCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 857 F. 3d 833, 840–42 (11th Cir. 2017)). [fn 1] This case involves the same parties, the same claims, and the same subject matter as the previously filed action. As such, the Court will direct Plaintiff to show cause why this duplicate action should not be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Plaintiff is directed to show cause by a written response filed on or before
October 14, 2025, why this duplicate action should not be dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 7th day of October 2025.
Lc35 Copies to: Counsel of Record
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge
[*2][fn 1]: The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent; however, they may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a particular point. See McNamara v. GEICO, 30 F. 4th 1055, 1060–61 (11th Cir. 2022); see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.").