ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Docket No. 950

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

The Court previously denied without Plaintiff's administrative motion to consider whether Mendel v. Chao, No. 19-cv-3244 (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2019), currently assigned to Judge White, should be related to O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv-3826 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 2013), before this Court. Docket No. 949. The Court explained that Plaintiff had not yet served the Defendants in Mendel with summons and copies of the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c). Nor had Plaintiff served Defendants with copies of the motion to relate in accordance with Local Rule 3-12(b) to allow them an opportunity to respond.

Plaintiff has now filed an amended motion to relate Mendel to O'Connor. Docket No. 950. However, it still appears that Plaintiff has not served all Mendel Defendants with the instant motion. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12(b) ("[A] copy of the motion [to relate], together with proof of service pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-5, must be served on all known parties to each apparently related action."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended motion to relate is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion and serve the Mendel Defendants in compliance with Local Rule 3-12(b).

This order disposes of Docket No. 950.

IT IS SO ORDERED.