Burnside et al v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Filing
52
ORDER denying (26) Motion to Transfer Related Case. in case 3:15-cv-08233-PGR; denying [] Motion to Transfer Related Case. in case 3:16-cv-08188-SPL; denying [] Motion to Transfer Related Case. in case 3:16-cv-08196-DLR; denying [] Motion to Transfer Related Case. in case 3:16-cv-08221-DGC; denying [] Motion to Transfer Related Case. in case 3:16-cv-08229-JAT; denying (25) Motion to Transfer Related Case. in case 3:16-cv-08245-JWS; denying (26) Motion to Transfer Related Case. in case 3:16-cv-08268-DJH. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/1/17. (Associated Cases: 3:15-cv-08233-PGR et al.) (KGM)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Laura Burnside, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
vs.
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation,
14
Defendant.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-15-08233-PCT-PGR
Related Cases:
CV-16-08188-PCT-SPL
CV-16-08196-PCT-DLR
CV-16-08221-PCT-DGC
CV-16-08229-PCT-JAT
CV-16-08245-PCT-JWS
CV-16-08268-PCT-DMF
ORDER
18
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Transfer (Doc. 26) filed by
19
defendant Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR), wherein it seeks
20
to transfer six other ONHIR-related cases to the undersigned Judge pursuant to
21
LRCiv 42.1. The plaintiffs in all seven cases have opposed the requested transfer.
22
The Court, in the exercise of its “broad discretion” in determining whether the
23
reassignment of the affected cases is appropriate under LRCiv 42.1, see Badea v.
24
Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1414
25
(9th Cir.1989), finds that the motion should be denied.
26
First, the Court is not persuaded that the cases involve substantially the same
1
parties or call for the determination of substantially the same questions of law. While
2
all of the cases arise from the plaintiffs’ desires to obtain relocation assistance
3
benefits under the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act and the ONHIR is the sole
4
defendant in all of them, the similarity of the cases, in a legally material sense, ends
5
there. The plaintiffs are different in all of the cases, the specific legal issues they
6
raise are not substantially the same, and the factual circumstances underlying their
7
cases are unique to them. While there is some commonality of counsel representing
8
the various parties, that mere commonality is an insufficient basis on which to justify
9
the transfer that ONHIR seeks given the legal and factual distinctions among the
10
cases.
11
Second, the Court is also not persuaded that there would be any substantial
12
duplication of judicial labor if the requested transfer is denied. Each case involves
13
an administrative record that must be judicially reviewed and each such record is
14
distinct from the others. Furthermore, no showing has been made that the resolution
15
of these significantly dissimilar cases by the different judges assigned to them will
16
likely result in inconsistent rulings materially prejudicial to any of the parties involved
17
in them. Therefore,
18
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 26) is denied.
19
DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-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?