IHOP Franchising, LLC, et al v Hameed

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/11/2015 DECLINING to reassign this case pursuant to Local Rule 123(c). (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SULTAN HAMEED, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:10-cv-02276-MCE-CMK Plaintiff, v. ORDER IHOP FRANCHISING, LLC, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is a Notice of Related Cases. ECF No. 47. For the 18 reasons that follow, the Court finds that although this action is related to IHOP 19 Franchising, LLC v. Hameed, 2:14-cv-01752-TLN-CKD, under Local Rule 123(a), 20 reassignment of that action is unwarranted. 21 Plaintiff Sultan Hameed (“Hameed”) filed his complaint in this action in August 22 2010. The Court subsequently granted Defendant IHOP’s motion to dismiss with leave 23 to amend. Hameed, however, declined to amend his complaint, and the Court ordered 24 the case closed in March 2011. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s granting of the 25 motion to dismiss in May 2013. 26 In July 2014, IHOP filed a complaint against Hameed alleging trademark 27 infringement. That case was assigned to Eastern District Court Judge Troy L. Nunley. 28 In February 2015, the assigned district court judge granted IHOP’s motion for a 1 1 preliminary injunction. It was not until April 2015, however, that IHOP filed the present 2 Notice of Related Cases. Cf. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 123(b) (“Counsel who has reason to 3 believe that an action on file or about to be filed may be related to another action on file 4 (whether or not dismissed or otherwise terminated) shall promptly file in each action and 5 serve on all parties in each action a Notice of Related Cases.”) (emphasis added). 6 Under Local Rule 123(a), actions are related when they “involve the same parties 7 and are based on the same or a similar claim,” or when they “involve the same property, 8 transaction, or event.”1 The present action and IHOP Franchising, LLC v. Hameed are 9 certainly related: not only do both actions involve the same parties, but both actions are 10 11 based on the same franchise agreement and sublease. Nevertheless, reassignment of the actions is unwarranted because reassigning 12 IHOP Franchising, LLC v. Hameed to the undersigned is not “likely to effect a savings of 13 judicial effort or other economies.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 123(c). Not only did the 14 undersigned order this case closed more than four years ago, but the judge currently 15 assigned to IHOP Franchising, LLC v. Hameed recently issued an order granting IHOP’s 16 motion for a preliminary injunction (an order that requires a strong understanding of the 17 underlying facts and legal dispute). Accordingly, reassigning IHOP Franchising, LLC v. 18 Hameed to the undersigned would not effect a savings of judicial effort or other 19 economies. 20 Thus, although the cases are related, the Court declines to reassign IHOP 21 Franchising, LLC v. Hameed, 2:14-cv-01752-TLN-CKD to the undersigned pursuant to 22 Local Rule 123(c). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11, 2015 25 26 27 1 28 Although Local Rule 123(a) provides additional circumstances in which actions might be related, none are inapplicable here. 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?