govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-22949-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 

 
MILLICENT HINDS, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., 
 
 Defendant. 
______________________________________________/ 
 
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 
 
 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 
Complaint, [ECF No. 10] . On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff Millicent Hinds, proceeding pro se , 
filed this action against Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. in Florida state court. See 
State Court Docket Sheet, [ECF No. 1- 5]. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered 
serious injuries from taking Defendant’s pharmaceutical drug Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim 
(Bactrim). See State Court Complaint, [ECF No. 1-1]. Plaintiff brings two causes of action against 
Defendant—violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and 
negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). See generally id. 
 Defendant removed the case to federal court on April 27, 2026, [ECF No. 1], and it was 
assigned to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid, [ECF No. 2]. On April 29, 2026, Defendant filed a 
Notice of Pending, Refiled, Related, or Similar Actions identifying a pending case in the United 
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“New Jersey Action”) , also filed by Plaintiff 
against Defendant. [ECF No. 5]. 
Case 1:26-cv-22949-RAR Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4 
 
Plaintiff filed the New Jersey Action—Millicent Hinds v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries , 
No. 3:25-cv-15474 (D.N.J.)—on September 11, 2025, about five months before the instant case . 
See id. Plaintiff’s Complaint in the New Jersey Action is also predicated on the same factual 
allegations as this case, and many paragraphs are identical between the two . See Hinds v. Sun 
Pharmaceutical Industries, 3:25- cv-15474-RK-JTQ (D.N.J.), ECF No. 1 (“N.J. Compl.”). 
However, Plaintiff asserts two different claims in the New Jersey Action: violation of the New 
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) and negligence. Id. 
 On May 4, 2026, Defendant moved to reassign the instant case to a district judge, [ECF 
No. 9], which Magistrate Judge Reid granted, [ECF No. 11]. Accordingly, the case was reassigned 
to the undersigned. See [ECF No. 12]. The same day, Defendant “move[d] to dismiss this matter 
as duplicative under the first-filed rule or, alternatively, to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure 
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” [ECF No. 10] at 1. On May 14, 2026, Plaintiff 
filed a brief Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 13] , noting that “Plaintiff 
filed her complaint in the correct venue and in a timely manner” and “cited claims for relief in 
filing the complaint.” The Court having carefully reviewed the record and being fully advised, 
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 10], is GRANTED for the reasons set forth herein. 
* * * 
“Federal courts retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.” Slack 
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); see also Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d 
Cir. 2000) (“As part of its general power to administer its docket, a district court may stay or 
dismiss a suit that is duplicative of another federal court suit.” (citations omitted)); I.A. Durbin, 
Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank , 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986) (“It is well established ‘as 
Case 1:26-cv-22949-RAR Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4 
 
between federal district courts, . . . the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.’” 
(quoting Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976))). 
“[T]he general rule is that a suit is duplicative of another suit if the parties, issues and 
available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions.” I.A. Durbin, Inc., 793 F.2d at 
1551 (citations omitted). The Court finds that the instant case bears all three hallmarks of a 
duplicative filing when compared to the first -filed New Jersey Action . First, the same Plaintiff, 
Millicent Hinds, is suing the same Defendant, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. 
Second, Plaintiff raises the same issues. Both cases arise from her treatment at Cano Health 
on or about August 31, 2023, where she was prescribed Bactrim and suffered symptoms thereafter. 
Compare Compl. ¶¶ 7–9, with N.J. Compl. ¶¶ 5–7. Both Complaints also point to the same injuries 
Plaintiff experienced, describing them in identical terms. Compare Compl. ¶¶ 28–29 (“Since using 
the Defendants’ pharmaceutical drug . . . Plaintiff is now unable to care for herself. The 
Defendants’ pharmaceutical drug . . . has destroyed the Plaintiff’s health and life.”) , with N.J. 
Compl. ¶¶ 25–26 (same). 
Third, Plaintiff seeks the same relief in both cases. In the instant case, Plaintiff seeks “entry 
of judgment against the Defendant, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, in an amount in excess of Fifty 
Thousand Dollars . . . [t]hat the Defendant be ordered to pay civil penalties for violations of 
applicable statutes . . . [and t]hat Defendant be permanently enjoined from engaging in future 
unfair and deceptive trade practices.” Compl. ¶¶ 61–63. Plaintiff’s New Jersey Complaint 
includes the same prayers for relief. See N.J. Compl. ¶¶ 42–44. 
The key difference between the two Complaints is the different causes of action Plaintiff 
alleges. Compare Compl. (FDUTPA and NIED), with N.J. Compl. (NJCFA and negligence). But 
Plaintiff may not “split up [her] demand and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present only a portion 
Case 1:26-cv-22949-RAR Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4 
 
of the grounds upon which special relief is sought, and leave the rest to be presented in a second 
suit.” Stark v. Starr, 94 U.S. 477, 485 (1876). “ To determine whether such duplicative claim -
splitting has occurred, courts borrow from the doctrine of claim preclusion and permit the later -
filed suit to be dismissed if it 1) involves the same parties or their privies; and 2) arises out of the 
same transaction or series of transactions as the first suit.” Greene v. H & R Block E. Enters., Inc., 
727 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2010) . As discussed, the instant case involves the same 
parties and arises out of the same transaction as the New Jersey Action. As such, Plaintiff’s 
inclusion of different causes of action does not change the fact that the instant case is duplicative 
of the New Jersey Action. 
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s 
Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 10], is GRANTED. As such, this case is DISMISSED as 
duplicative. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT , and all deadlines are 
TERMINATED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 14th day of May, 2026. 
 
 
 
 _________________________________ 
 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
cc:
 Millicent Hinds 
14910 SW 145th Street 
Miami, FL 33196 
PRO SE 
Case 1:26-cv-22949-RAR Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2026 Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight