Mary Lou Vega v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLCS MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT 22 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 9/8/2014 (lc).

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MARY LOU VEGA, individually and on

12

Case No. 2:14-cv-04408-ODW(PLAx)

behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC’S

v.

15

OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION;

16

MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT [22]

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

17

Defendants,

18

Before the Court is Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion for

19

Assignment Pursuant to General Order 14-03 and Local Rule 83-1.2.2. (ECF No. 22.)

20

In the Motion, Ocwen seeks reassignment of this action because it is identical—or at

21

least nearly identical—to a previous action before a different judge in the Central

22

District of California.

23

According to Ocwen, Plaintiff Mary Lou Vega failed to identify on the civil

24

cover sheet that the present case is the same case as Vega v. Ocwen Financial

25

Corporation, No. 13-cv-09445-JFW(RZx) (“Vega I”).

26

dismissed without prejudice on January 16, 2014. Identifying the case as identical

27

would have triggered the automatic assignment of the present case to the same judge

28

that was assigned to Vega I. See L.R. 83-1.2.2. Instead, in filing the present case,

Vega I was voluntarily

1

Vega only identified Vega I as related. (See ECF No. 2.) That designation led to the

2

preparation of a discretionary related-case transfer, which Judge John Walter declined.

3

(ECF No. 13.)

4

Ocwen argues that the failure to identify this case as identical to Vega I has

5

permitted Vega to engage in “judge shopping.” But Vega opposes the instant Motion,

6

arguing that this case is not identical to Vega I, because there are additional

7

allegations and an additional claim. Moreover, Vega contends that Ocwen is actually

8

“judge shopping” by filing this Motion. The Court finds that both parties’ arguments

9

miss the mark.

10

The cases—Vega I and this action—may be identical. They may not. The

11

Court need not reach that decision. The purpose of Local Rules 83-1.2.2 (Duty on

12

Refiling Actions) and 83-1.3 (Notice of Related Cases) is to avoid duplication of

13

efforts by the Court. There is no danger of wasting judicial resources here, because

14

Vega I was voluntarily dismissed less than a month after it was filed. Moreover, while

15

Vega may have erred in not identifying this case as a refiling of Vega I, Judge Walter

16

reviewed the action and declined to accept the case transfer. This Court sees no

17

reason to retread those waters and alter that decision. The Court is well aware of the

18

effect and consequences of a prior dismissal of the same claim, and will adjudicate

19

any issues that may arise as a result of the voluntary dismissal of Vega I. See Fed. R.

20

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).

21
22
23

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Ocwen’s Motion for
Assignment. (ECF No. 22.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

September 8, 2014

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2