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.)

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