Parise v. Union Pacific Railroad

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/26/2014 6 The actions Parise v. Union Pacific Railroad, 2:14-cv-22-JAM-KJN and Parise v. Union Pacific Railroad, 2:14-cv-36-KJM-CKD are deemed NOT RELATED. The Clerk of Court shall file a copy of this order on the docket in both actions. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN JAMES PARISE, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0022-JAM-KJN PS

v.

ORDER

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 6, 2014, and paid the filing fee. On February

17
18

25, 2014, defendant Union Pacific Railroad filed a “Notice of Related Case,” requesting that

19

another action filed by plaintiff on January 7, 2014 (Parise v. Union Pacific Railroad, 2:14-cv-36-

20

KJM-CKD) be related to this case. (ECF No. 6.)

21

Pursuant to Local Rule 123, actions are related for purposes of the rule “when (1) both

22

actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar claim; (2) both actions

23

involve the same property, transaction, or event; (3) both actions involve similar questions of fact

24

and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely

25

to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in

26

both actions or otherwise; or (4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of

27

labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a).

28

////
1

1

Here, both actions involve the same parties and, in a general sense, are both predicated on

2

alleged injuries that plaintiff sustained during his employment as a locomotive engineer with the

3

defendant railroad. Nevertheless, upon closer examination, the claims do not appear similar and

4

instead appear to involve different subject matter, at least based on plaintiff’s current pleadings

5

and the limited record presently before the court. The instant action generally concerns certain

6

back injuries plaintiff allegedly suffered on the job as a result of “rough riding locomotives” and

7

defendant’s purported failure to provide seat belts. (See ECF No. 1.) The later action involves

8

alleged injuries suffered as a result of plaintiff’s purported exposure to asbestos during his work

9

for defendant. (See Parise v. Union Pacific Railroad, 2:14-cv-36-KJM-CKD, ECF No. 3.) As

10

such, the type and nature of the injuries involved, as well as their potential causes, appear

11

substantially different. Each claim is likely to implicate different workplace policies or industry

12

standards, and is likely to involve different questions of fact, different questions of law, and

13

different evidence. Indeed, there is no indication that the same result should necessarily follow in

14

both actions, or that assignment of the cases to different judges would entail substantial

15

duplication of labor.

16

Therefore, the court finds that relating the cases would not be appropriate under Local

17

Rule 123 at this juncture. However, that determination is without prejudice to renewal of a

18

request to relate the cases once the record has been further developed through discovery or

19

otherwise.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. The actions Parise v. Union Pacific Railroad, 2:14-cv-22-JAM-KJN and Parise v.

22

Union Pacific Railroad, 2:14-cv-36-KJM-CKD are deemed NOT RELATED.

23

2. The Clerk of Court shall file a copy of this order on the docket in both actions.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: February 26, 2014

26
27
28
2