Filed: Oct. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER RELATING CASES TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the government's Notice of Related Cases, filed September 27, 2019. (ECF No. 48.) Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Under Local Rule 123, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on a same or similar claim; when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when they "involve si
Summary: ORDER RELATING CASES TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the government's Notice of Related Cases, filed September 27, 2019. (ECF No. 48.) Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Under Local Rule 123, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on a same or similar claim; when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when they "involve sim..
More
ORDER RELATING CASES
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the government's Notice of Related Cases, filed September 27, 2019. (ECF No. 48.) Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Under Local Rule 123, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on a same or similar claim; when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when they "involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge . . . is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort." L.R. 123(a). Further,
[i]f the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning all higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.
L.R. 123(c).
Here, Defendants were arrested on January 22, 2019 pursuant to a criminal complaint charging them with conspiring to distribute narcotics and distribution of narcotics. (ECF No. 48 at 2.) The complaint alleges that Defendants worked jointly to operate a darkweb vendor account in which they sent marijuana parcels to customers throughout the country. (No. 2:19-CR-000157-TLN, ECF No. 1 at 4; No. 2:19-CR-00169-WVS, ECF No. 4.) Given the factual overlap, almost all the evidence in the cases relates to both Defendants. Moreover, the above-captioned cases involve the "same question of law" because Defendants are both alleged to have violated 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. (see No. 2:19-cr-000157-TLN, ECF No. 1 at 3; No. 2:19-cr-00169-WVS, ECF No. 1 at 3.) Accordingly, the Court finds there is sufficient overlap between the questions of law and fact in both cases to merit relating them, and assignment to the same Judge will save judicial resources and effort.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:19-cr-00169-WBS be reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley, and the caption shall read 2:19-cr-00169-TLN. Any dates currently set in 2:19-CR-00169-WBS are hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
