U.S. v. LOTT, 2:13-cr-00202-KJM (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171016681
Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 12, 2017
Summary: RELATED CASE ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Here, "both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim." Local Rule 123(a)(1). Accordingly, the assignment of these matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is likely to be convenient for the parties. The parties should be aware that rel
Summary: RELATED CASE ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Here, "both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim." Local Rule 123(a)(1). Accordingly, the assignment of these matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is likely to be convenient for the parties. The parties should be aware that rela..
More
RELATED CASE ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Here, "both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim." Local Rule 123(a)(1). Accordingly, the assignment of these matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is likely to be convenient for the parties.
The parties should be aware that relating cases under Rule 123 causes the actions to be assigned to the same judge; it does not consolidate the actions. Under Rule 123, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. Here, both matters are assigned to the undersigned. Thus, Plaintiff's request to assign the two cases to a single United States district judge is DENIED as MOOT.
As to Plaintiff's other request regarding assignment to a magistrate judge, it is hereby ORDERED that assignment of any matters under these cases to a magistrate judge shall comply with 28 U.S.C. §§ 3008 and 636, including the issuing of proposed findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(1)(C) where applicable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
