Filed: Dec. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2019
Summary: RELATED CASE ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Notice of Related Case filed November 14, 2019 (ECF Nos. 68, 19, respectively), as well as the Complaints filed in each case, and the dockets as a whole. Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, two actio
Summary: RELATED CASE ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Notice of Related Case filed November 14, 2019 (ECF Nos. 68, 19, respectively), as well as the Complaints filed in each case, and the dockets as a whole. Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, two action..
More
RELATED CASE ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Notice of Related Case filed November 14, 2019 (ECF Nos. 68, 19, respectively), as well as the Complaints filed in each case, and the dockets as a whole. Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 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, the actions involve substantially similar parties and are based on the same claims, as well as the same or similar background facts. It also appears the actions involve similar or related questions of law, despite the fact that the earlier-filed action has been dismissed. Consequently, assignment to the same judge would "effect a substantial savings of judicial effort." L.R. 123(a), see also L.R. 123(c).
Relating the cases under Local Rule 123, however, merely has the result that both actions are assigned to the same judge, it does not consolidate the actions. Under the regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:19-cv-01372-JAM-EFB is reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and the caption shall read 2:19-cv-01372-TLN-EFB. Any dates currently set in 2:19-cv-01372-JAM-EFB are hereby VACATED. The Clerk of the Court is to issue the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
