Friends of Tahoe Forest Access et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al
Filing
22
ORDER re 13 Notice of Related Case signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/1/12. Although both cases concern challenges to the Forest Service's management of off-road vehicles and involve similar questions of law, the challenged actions a ffect different geographical areas and involve review of entirely separate administrative records. Thus, assigning both cases to the same judge would not result in a substantial savings of judicial effort. The court DECLINES to reassign Friends of Tahoe Forest Access under Local Rule 123(c).(Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCE CENTER, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
No. 10-cv-02172- KJM-GGH
12
vs.
13
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
FRIENDS OF TAHOE FOREST ACCESS, et al.,
17
Plaintiffs,
18
19
No. 12-cv-01876-JAM-CKD
vs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al.,
ORDER ON RELATED CASE
REQUEST
20
Defendants.
21
/
22
Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are not related
23
within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Under Local Rule 123(a), two actions are related
24
when:
25
(1) [B]oth actions involve the same parties and are based on the same
or a similar claim;
26
1
1
(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;
2
(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question
of law and their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to
effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should
follow in both actions or otherwise; or
3
4
5
6
7
(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor
if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.
Local Rule 123(a)(3).
The plaintiffs in Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center v. U.S. Forest
8
Service, filed on August 12, 2010, contend that their case is related to Friends of Tahoe Forest
9
Access v. United States Department of Agriculture, filed on July 17, 2012. (Notice of Related
10
Cases, ECF 56.) Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the two cases share a common defendant,
11
similar claims,“parallel administrative proceedings” and similar scientific issues relating to the
12
forest environment, such that assigning both cases to the same judge would likely conserve
13
judicial resources. (Id. at 3.) The Forest Service argues that the two cases do not meet any of
14
the factors under Local Rule 123(a). (Fed. Defs.’ Resp. to Notice of Related Case, ECF 57.)
15
Although both cases concern challenges to the Forest Service’s management of off-road vehicles
16
and involve similar questions of law, the challenged actions affect different geographical areas
17
and involve review of entirely separate administrative records. Thus, assigning both cases to the
18
same judge would not result in a substantial savings of judicial effort. The court declines to
19
reassign Friends of Tahoe Forest Access under Local Rule 123(c).
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 1, 2012.
22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?