A court may dismiss a subsequent action that raises issues currently pending before the court.  Thus at common law,  pendency of a prior suit of the same character, between the same parties, brought to obtain the same end or object, is good cause for abatement.   [Yuille v. Bridgeport Hosp., 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1409 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 12, 2003)].  However, if the remedy sought to be enforced in a second action is concurrent or cumulative, the second action does not abate.

Moreover, the court will not abate a subsequent action, if the plaintiff brings the second action because of the fact that the prior action is defective.  The plaintiff is allowed to discontinue the former suit upon proper terms, and proceed with the later one.  [Beauregard v. Capitol Amusement Co., 301 Mass. 142 (Mass. 1938)].  Nevertheless, the second action will be abated if the prior action can give full relief by amendment or by curing the defects.  Even though the remedies in the two actions may not be identical, the second action may be abated if the relief sought in the second action could have been obtained by motion or otherwise in the first action and the relief is merely collateral or incidental to the relief sought in the first action. [Paducah v. Electric Plant Board of Paducah, 449 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. 1970)].