AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, et al.

Filing 135

RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/4/14 ORDERING that 2:14-cv-02544-JAM-CKD is REASSIGNED from District Judge John A. Mendez to to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller and from Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. The Caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as 2:14-cv-2544 KJM DAD. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:13-CV-0007-KJM-DAD

v.
GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”
YEAGER (RET.), et al.,

15

Defendant.
___________________________________

16

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, PLC,

17
18
19

Plaintiff-in-Intervention,
v.
GENERAL CHARES E. “CHUCK”
YEATER (RET.),

20
Defendant-in-Intervention.
21
No. 2:14-cv-02544-JAM-CKD
22
23

GENERAL CHARES E. “CHUCK”
YEATER (RET.), et al.

25
26
27

RELATED CASE ORDER

Plaintiffs,

24
v.

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, PLC, et
al.,
Defendants

28
1

1

Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the

2

meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Here, both actions involve General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager

3

and Parsons, Behle, and Latimer, PLC and its attorneys. In Case No. 2:13-CV-0007-KJM-DAD,

4

Plaintiff-in-Intervention Parsons Behle seeks to recover attorneys’ fees it alleges were incurred

5

and unpaid in that action, and in Case No. 2:14-cv-02544-JAM-CKD, Yeager seeks damages for

6

professional negligence, legal malpractice, and related claims arising out of the same

7

representation. Therefore, “both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a

8

similar claim;” “both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;” and were different

9

Judges or Magistrate Judges to hear these cases, “it would entail substantial duplication of labor.”

10

Local Rule 123(a). Accordingly, the assignment of these matters to the same judge is likely to

11

effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is likely to be convenient for the parties.

12

The parties should be aware that relating cases under Rule 123 causes the actions

13

to be assigned to the same judge – it does not consolidate the actions. Under Rule 123, related

14

cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was

15

assigned.

16

As a result, it is hereby ORDERED that 2:14-cv-02544-JAM-CKD is reassigned

17

from District Judge John A. Mendez to the undersigned and from Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.

18

Delaney to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the

19

reassigned case shall be shown as: 2:14-cv-02544-KJM-DAD.

20
21
22
23

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate adjustment in
the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 4, 2014.

24
25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2