Abrams v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 77 plaintiff's Motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams, CV-12-00314-PHX-NVW; and denying without prejudice 77 plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to plaintiff filing a new motion for extension of time that complies with LRCiv 7.3. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/16/12.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Georgina Abrams, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Wells Fargo Bank, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 11-01928-PHX-FJM ORDER 15 16 In this action, plaintiff alleges consumer fraud, abuse of process, anticipatory breach 17 of contract, perjury, and fraud against numerous defendants. The court has before it 18 plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams, CV-12-00314-PHX-NVW, to our docket 19 (doc. 77). In this motion, plaintiff also requests an extension of time to answer the fifteen 20 motions filed by defendants. The motion is not fully briefed. 21 In deciding whether to transfer a case under LRCiv 42.1, we consider whether matters 22 of substance have been considered in a case, whether a particular judge has the most 23 familiarity with the relevant issues, and whether a case can be reasonably viewed as the lead 24 case. Here, plaintiff argues that her recently filed action involves a common question of law 25 and fact as both actions are based upon her ex-husband's alleged refusal to follow orders in 26 previous court cases. She asks that we consolidate the cases to avoid unnecessary costs and 27 prevent duplication of evidence. Although plaintiff's ex-husband is a party in both actions, 28 the action before us has more than fifty additional defendants. These actions do not "involve 1 substantially the same parties." LRCiv 42.1(a). There is also nothing so unique about these 2 actions that would make us any more equipped than any other judge in this district to 3 adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Additionally, there is a motion to remand pending in the action 4 plaintiff wishes us to transfer. In sum, there are not compelling reasons to transfer plaintiff's 5 recently-filed action. 6 Plaintiff asks for a few more days to respond to all pending motions. The request 7 does not state the position of "each other party" as required by the local rules. LRCiv 7.3(b). 8 Moreover, plaintiff's time for responding to several of the pending motions has already 9 expired. 10 11 IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams, CV12-00314-PHX-NVW (doc. 77). 12 IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for an extension of time without 13 prejudice to plaintiff filing a new motion for extension of time that complies with LRCiv 7.3 14 (doc. 77). 15 DATED this 16th day of March, 2012. 16 17 18 19 20 21 (cc: NVW) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?