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)

Download PDF
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?