ORDER RELATING CASES

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

On September 24, 2014, Judge White issued an order noting that Plaintiffs are litigating the same patents in nine cases pending in this district:

After reviewing the parties' submissions on the issue, the court has concluded no conference is required and that the issue may be decided on the papers. Under Civil L.R. 3-12(a), an "action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges."2 A judge may sua sponte refer a case the judge believes is related "to the Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case, requesting the Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case consider whether the cases are related. The parties must file any response in opposition to or support of relating the cases pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(d)."3

"Upon . . . a referral by another Judge, after the time for filing support or opposition to the Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related has passed, the Judge in this District who is assigned to the earliest-filed case will decide if the cases are or are not related and will notify the Clerk, who, in turn, will notify the parties."4 The judge assigned to the earliest-filed case must "act on the motion or referral within 14 days after the date a response is due."5 "If any Judge decides that any of the cases are related, pursuant to the Assignment Plan, the Clerk shall reassign all related later-filed cases to that Judge and shall notify the parties and the affected Judges accordingly."6 "The case management conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the newly assigned Judge."7

After the order of referral for purposes of determining the relationship and continuing the case management conference,8 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed their response.9 They do not oppose relating the actions.

All nine of these cases are plainly related. The overlap in parties, patents and accused functionality make clear that the potential for conflict and undue duplication and expense is substantial. In light of their relation, in the ordinary course, the cases would all be reassigned to the undersigned as low judge on the pole. However, various parties have declined consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as is their right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The undersigned therefore orders all eight follow-on cases assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(f)(3), the judge assigned to the related case next on the list. The Clerk shall notify the parties and the affected judges accordingly.

With the parties' consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction secured long ago, the undersigned will continue to preside over HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties, Ltd. (PSG).

SO ORDERED.