Filed: Mar. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. In this action, plaintiff alleges consumer fraud, abuse of process, anticipatory breach of contract, perjury, and fraud against numerous defendants. The court has before it plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams , CV-12-00314-PHX-NVW, to our docket (doc. 77). In this motion, plaintiff also requests an extension of time to answer the fifteen motions filed by defendants. The motion is not fully briefed. In deciding whether to transfer a case
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. In this action, plaintiff alleges consumer fraud, abuse of process, anticipatory breach of contract, perjury, and fraud against numerous defendants. The court has before it plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams , CV-12-00314-PHX-NVW, to our docket (doc. 77). In this motion, plaintiff also requests an extension of time to answer the fifteen motions filed by defendants. The motion is not fully briefed. In deciding whether to transfer a case ..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
In this action, plaintiff alleges consumer fraud, abuse of process, anticipatory breach of contract, perjury, and fraud against numerous defendants. The court has before it plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams, CV-12-00314-PHX-NVW, to our docket (doc. 77). In this motion, plaintiff also requests an extension of time to answer the fifteen motions filed by defendants. The motion is not fully briefed.
In deciding whether to transfer a case under LRCiv 42.1, we consider whether matters of substance have been considered in a case, whether a particular judge has the most familiarity with the relevant issues, and whether a case can be reasonably viewed as the lead case. Here, plaintiff argues that her recently filed action involves a common question of law and fact as both actions are based upon her ex-husband's alleged refusal to follow orders in previous court cases. She asks that we consolidate the cases to avoid unnecessary costs and prevent duplication of evidence. Although plaintiff's ex-husband is a party in both actions, the action before us has more than fifty additional defendants. These actions do not "involve substantially the same parties." LRCiv 42.1(a). There is also nothing so unique about these actions that would make us any more equipped than any other judge in this district to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Additionally, there is a motion to remand pending in the action plaintiff wishes us to transfer. In sum, there are not compelling reasons to transfer plaintiff's recently-filed action.
Plaintiff asks for a few more days to respond to all pending motions. The request does not state the position of "each other party" as required by the local rules. LRCiv 7.3(b). Moreover, plaintiff's time for responding to several of the pending motions has already expired.
IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams, CV-12-00314-PHX-NVW (doc. 77).
IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for an extension of time without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new motion for extension of time that complies with LRCiv 7.3 (doc. 77).
