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