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 D ale 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)

Download PDF
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

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?