Order | Filed: June 26, 2026
| Entered: June 26, 2026
Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al
Consumer Credit | New York Eastern
~Util - Add and Terminate Parties Order Dismissing Case
ORDER: On March 16, 2024, Plaintiffs Duprey and Vazquez, husband and wife, filed an action, Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 24-cv-1946, against multiple defendants, including Defendant Selene Finance LP ("Defendant Selene Finance"). Plaintiffs brought that action asserting claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Vazquez filed a separate action, Vazquez v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-01898, against multiple defendants, including Defendant Selene Finance. Plaintiff brought her action asserting claims under the FCRA. Also on April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Duprey filed another action, Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-1892, against multiple defendants, including Defendant Selene Finance, asserting claims under the FCRA.
The Second Circuit has made clear that plaintiffs have "no right to maintain [multiple] actions on the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time." Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2000). In such cases, "dismissal of the second suit is [a] common disposition." Id. at 138-39.
The gravamen for each of the three complaints is the same. That is in each complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Selene Finance's misreported Plaintiffs' mortgage payments and Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the alleged misreporting. (See Vazquez v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-01898, ECF No. 42; Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 24-cv-1946, ECF No. 1; Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-1892, ECF No. 1.) Because Plaintiff Duprey originally brought suit against Defendant Selene Finance in Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 24-cv-1946, any claims relating to Defendant Selene Finance's alleged misreporting and failure to investigate should have been brought under that suit. Instead, Plaintiffs seek to impermissibly maintain similar claims against the same Defendant for alleged actions deriving from the same transaction or occurrence. Accordingly, Plaintiff claims against Defendant Selene Finance in the instant case, Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, 1:25-cv-1892, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to TERMINATE Defendant Selene Finance.
Plaintiff Duprey's claims against Defendants One Financial Corporation, First National Bank, and Synchrony Bank remain. The Court "can consolidate related cases under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte." Devlin v. Trans. Comm. Intern. Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999). "[C]onsolidation is acceptable '[w]hen actions involving a common question of fact or law are pending before the Court.'" Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, "[t]he trial court has broad discretion," Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990), and "should consider both equity and judicial economy," Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130. The "paramount" concern, however, is "for a fair and impartial trial." Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285. In other words, "efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justiceconsolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice." Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (emphasis in original).
Here, the same attorneys represent Plaintiffs in both actions, there are common questions of law and fact, and the complaints are substantially similar. As explained above, Plaintiffs' complaints both allege that Plaintiffs properly made payments and that Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after Plaintiffs alerted Defendants of the misreporting of their payments. (See Am. Compl. 16-19, 30-31, ECF No. 42, Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, 1:25-cv-1892; Compl. 24-33, 48, 130, ECF No. 1 Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, 1:24-cv-1946.) Moreover, the Court cannot discern any prejudice that would result from consolidation. This is especially true given that both cases are in similar stages of litigation. See Mellon v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., No. 17CV2695ADSARL, 2017 WL 4776738, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2017) (finding no prejudice in consolidation where "the cases are all at the same stages of litigation"). On balance, the interests of justice are best served by consolidation, as consolidating these two actions as one will enhance judicial economy without prejudicing Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court hereby consolidates the instant case with Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, 24-cv-01946. As the earliest filed action, Vazquez et al, 24-cv-01946 shall become the lead case. Consistent with t... (truncated)
Order | Filed: June 26, 2026
| Entered: June 26, 2026
Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al
Consumer Credit | New York Eastern
~Util - Add and Terminate Parties
ORDER: On March 16, 2024, Plaintiffs Duprey and Vazquez, husband and wife, filed an action, Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 24-cv-1946, against multiple defendants, including Defendant Selene Finance LP ("Defendant Selene Finance"). Plaintiffs brought that action asserting claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Vazquez filed a separate action, Vazquez v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-01898, against multiple defendants, including Defendant Selene Finance. Plaintiff brought her action asserting claims under the FCRA. Also on April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Duprey filed another action, Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-1892, against multiple defendants, including Defendant Selene Finance, asserting claims under the FCRA.
The Second Circuit has made clear that plaintiffs have "no right to maintain [multiple] actions on the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time." Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2000). In such cases, "dismissal of the second suit is [a] common disposition." Id. at 138-39.
The gravamen for each of the three complaints is the same. That is in each complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Selene Finance's misreported Plaintiffs' mortgage payments and Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the alleged misreporting. (See Vazquez v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-01898, ECF No. 42; Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 24-cv-1946, ECF No. 1; Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 25-cv-1892, ECF No. 1.) Because Plaintiff Duprey originally brought suit against Defendant Selene Finance in Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, Case No. 24-cv-1946, any claims relating to Defendant Selene Finance's alleged misreporting and failure to investigate should have been brought under that suit. Instead, Plaintiffs seek to impermissibly maintain similar claims against the same Defendant for alleged actions deriving from the same transaction or occurrence. Accordingly, Plaintiff claims against Defendant Selene Finance in the instant case, Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, 1:25-cv-1892, is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to TERMINATE Defendant Selene Finance.
Plaintiff Duprey's claims against Defendants One Financial Corporation, First National Bank, and Synchrony Bank remain. The Court "can consolidate related cases under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte." Devlin v. Trans. Comm. Intern. Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999). "[C]onsolidation is acceptable '[w]hen actions involving a common question of fact or law are pending before the Court.'" Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, "[t]he trial court has broad discretion," Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990), and "should consider both equity and judicial economy," Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130. The "paramount" concern, however, is "for a fair and impartial trial." Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285. In other words, "efficiency cannot be permitted to prevail at the expense of justiceconsolidation should be considered when savings of expense and gains of efficiency can be accomplished without sacrifice of justice." Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (emphasis in original).
Here, the same attorneys represent Plaintiffs in both actions, there are common questions of law and fact, and the complaints are substantially similar. As explained above, Plaintiffs' complaints both allege that Plaintiffs properly made payments and that Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after Plaintiffs alerted Defendants of the misreporting of their payments. (See Am. Compl. 16-19, 30-31, ECF No. 42, Duprey v. Selene Finance LP et al, 1:25-cv-1892; Compl. 24-33, 48, 130, ECF No. 1 Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, 1:24-cv-1946.) Moreover, the Court cannot discern any prejudice that would result from consolidation. This is especially true given that both cases are in similar stages of litigation. See Mellon v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., No. 17CV2695ADSARL, 2017 WL 4776738, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2017) (finding no prejudice in consolidation where "the cases are all at the same stages of litigation"). On balance, the interests of justice are best served by consolidation, as consolidating these two actions as one will enhance judicial economy without prejudicing Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court hereby consolidates the instant case with Vazquez et al v. Selene Finance LP et al, 24-cv-01946. As the earliest filed action, Vazquez et al, 24-cv-01946 shall become the lead case. Consistent with t... (truncated)