California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Agricultural Management and Production Company, et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/29/15 DECLINING to issue an order re: 11 Notice of Related Case. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non-profit
corporation,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

No. 2:14-CV-02328-KJM-AC

ORDER

v.
AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENTAND
PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC., and
ROBERT SMYTHE,
Defendants.

18
19
20

On January 16, 2015, defendants Agricultural Management and Production

21

Company, Inc. (AMPC) and Robert Smythe filed a notice of related cases. ECF No. 11. By their

22

estimation, this case (No. 14-2328) is related to California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v.

23

Agricultural Management and Production Company Inc., No. 97-1027 (E.D. Cal. filed June 3,

24

1997). California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) disagrees. Local Rule 123(a) defines

25

related cases. An action is related to another when

26
27
28

(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same
or a similar claim;
(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same
question of law and their assignment to the same Judge or
Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial
effort, either because the same result should follow in both actions
or otherwise; or
(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of
labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate
Judges.
E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a).
The court declines to issue an order relating these cases. Although both No. 14-

8

2328 and No. 97-1027 include the CSPA and AMPC as parties, and both surround alleged

9

unlawful discharges of pollutants from the Afterthought Mine, the defendants have not

10

demonstrated how relation of these cases would affect any savings of time or avoid any

11

duplication of labor. Although the defendants’ position is not entirely clear, they appear to

12

contend a settlement agreement and dismissal in No. 97-1027 bars the plaintiff from asserting its

13

claims in No. 14-2328 as a matter of claim or issue preclusion. See Not. Rel. Cases 2:1–5, ECF

14

No. 11 (“[Mr. Smythe] paid [a] considerable sum ($30,000.) to obtain that settlement agreement

15

and release of all claims [in No. 97-1027]. The case was dismissed with prejudice. The second

16

case was filed 17 years later, and only a few days after Judge Karlton who was assigned to the

17

1997 case retired.”). Relating the cases is not warranted if in fact preclusion is defendants’

18

defense. Numbers 14-2328 and 97-1027 are not related as defined in the Local Rules.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 29, 2015.

21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2