Filed: Dec. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER DECLINING TRANSFER LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge. On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff David Kauffman filed a notice of related cases in this action under Civil Local Rule 40.1(f), specifying that his putative class action may be related to another action filed in this district, Couser v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02575-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2012). (Docket no. 16.) The undersigned Judge was assigned the Couser case and previously declined to accept transfer of th
Summary: ORDER DECLINING TRANSFER LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge. On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff David Kauffman filed a notice of related cases in this action under Civil Local Rule 40.1(f), specifying that his putative class action may be related to another action filed in this district, Couser v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02575-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2012). (Docket no. 16.) The undersigned Judge was assigned the Couser case and previously declined to accept transfer of the..
More
ORDER DECLINING TRANSFER
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff David Kauffman filed a notice of related cases in this action under Civil Local Rule 40.1(f), specifying that his putative class action may be related to another action filed in this district, Couser v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02575-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2012). (Docket no. 16.) The undersigned Judge was assigned the Couser case and previously declined to accept transfer of the Kauffman case on June 12, 2014, having determined that Kauffman was not related to Couser.
In the interim, Plaintiff Kauffman was given leave to amend his complaint, and filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on October 9, 2014. The Clerk of the Court prepared a transfer order pursuant to the district's low-number rule on November 19, 2014. See Civ. L.R. 40.1(e).
After another review of these two cases, the undersigned Judge determined again that the cases are not related. The plaintiffs in each case are different individuals, and none of the defendants are the same except one, Callfire, Inc. The respective plaintiffs are represented by different counsel. The cases do not arise from the same transactions or events: whereas Couser's case was about alleged telephone calls she received on approximately 40 occasions, (Couser, Docket no. 25, FAC, ¶ 30), Kauffman's allegations arise out of 31 text-based SMS messages, (Kauffman, Docket no. 10, FAC, ¶ 25). Also, the calls in Couser were alleged to be unsolicited, (Couser, FAC, ¶¶ 24-25), but the text messages in Kauffman were alleged to begin after Kauffman dialed a telephone number that purported to give advice on choosing the winner of sports competitions, (Kauffman, FAC, ¶¶ 21-22). The Couser plaintiff settled and relinquished any class action claims before the Court had the opportunity to determine any class-related issues; in contrast, Kauffman purports to represent a putative class.
The Court does not have reason to believe that this action calls for the determination of any similar facts or adjudication of any identical questions of law. See Civ. L.R. 40.1(g). For that reason, it is not a related case and the undersigned declines transfer of this action under the low-number rule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
