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)

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-