United States of America v. Sierra Pacific Industries et al

Filing 579

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/6/2012 ORDERING that cases: 2:09-cv-02445 KJM EFB, 2:11-cv-00346 MCE JFM and 2:12-cv-01489 JAM DAD not be related to each other; EXPRESSING no opinion regarding the relation of cases: 2:11-cv-00346 MCE JFM and 2:12-cv-01489 JAM DAD. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

11
12

No. CIV S-09-2445 KJM-EFB

vs.

13

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES; et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES,
16
Plaintiff,
17
18

No. CIV S-11-0346 MCE-JFM

vs.
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.

19

/
20
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO.,
21
Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-12-1489 JAM-DAD

22
vs.
23
24
25

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.

RELATED CASE ORDER
/

26
1

1

Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are not related

2

within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Here, although the actions numbered 11-0346 and 12-

3

1489 stem from the same event as the action numbered 09-2445, the three actions are not based

4

on a similar claim, nor do they involve similar questions of fact or law such that “their

5

assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of

6

judicial effort.” Local Rule 123(a)(1)-(3). Moreover, 11-0346 and 12-1489 would not “entail

7

substantial duplication of labor” if these actions are heard by different judges from 09-2445.

8

Accordingly, the assignment of these matters to the same judge will not effect a substantial

9

savings of judicial effort or be convenient for the parties.

10
11
12
13
14

As a result, these three cases shall not be related. The undersigned expresses no
opinion regarding the relation of 11-0346 and 12-1489 to each other.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 6, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2