Filed: Mar. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER (Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer-#96) ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer Second-Filed Case to First-Filed Case (#96, filed Nov. 10, 2011) based on Local Rule 7.2-1. The Court has also considered Defendants' Opposition (#97, filed Nov. 28), and Plaintiffs' Reply (#98, filed Dec. 8). Plaintiffs seek to relate and transfer Abraham, et al. v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, et al., 2:11-cv-01007-JCM-RJJ, (" Abraham ")
Summary: ORDER (Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer-#96) ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer Second-Filed Case to First-Filed Case (#96, filed Nov. 10, 2011) based on Local Rule 7.2-1. The Court has also considered Defendants' Opposition (#97, filed Nov. 28), and Plaintiffs' Reply (#98, filed Dec. 8). Plaintiffs seek to relate and transfer Abraham, et al. v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, et al., 2:11-cv-01007-JCM-RJJ, (" Abraham ") ..
More
ORDER
(Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer-#96)
ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer Second-Filed Case to First-Filed Case (#96, filed Nov. 10, 2011) based on Local Rule 7.2-1. The Court has also considered Defendants' Opposition (#97, filed Nov. 28), and Plaintiffs' Reply (#98, filed Dec. 8).
Plaintiffs seek to relate and transfer Abraham, et al. v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, et al., 2:11-cv-01007-JCM-RJJ, ("Abraham") currently pending before the Honorable James C. Mahan to this Court and relate it to this case. Plaintiffs argue that the two cases involve the same parties, are based on similar claims, involve the same property, involve similar questions of fact and law, and that transfer and relation would likely create substantial savings of judicial effort. See Local Rule 7-2.1. The Court finds that it has the discretion to relate and transfer Abraham. Nonetheless, the Court will not do so. This is nothing more than an attempt to delay proceedings begun nearly three years ago. This case has been sent to arbitration in accord with the contracts Plaintiffs signed. (See Dkt. #59, Order Compelling Arbitration.) Granting this motion would not create substantial savings of judicial effort. The Court will not create further delays and judicial difficulties by relating these cases and transferring Abraham to this Court.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Relate and Transfer (#96) is DENIED.