Leahy v. Save Mart Supermarkets Inc

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/6/15 ORDERING these cases are not related as defined by the Local Rule. Although both include Save Mart as a defendant and include allegations linked to Save Mart's attendance policy, the plaintif fs in each are different individuals who advance different claims for relief on the basis of different factual allegations. Relating these cases would not be "likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort" or avoid "substantial duplication of labor." (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL LEAHY

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2830-KJM-CKD

v.

ORDER

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, INC., a
California Corporation, and Does 1 through
50, inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17
18
On April 2, 2015, Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets, Inc. filed a notice of related

19
20

cases. ECF No. 11. Save Mart believes this case is related to Daniel Izmaylov v. Save Mart

21

Supermarkets and Kenneth Baca., No. 2:15-CV-00208-WBS-KJN.1 An action is related to

22

another when

23

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

24

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;

25

(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

26
27
28

1

The Izmaylov case was converted to Civil Case No. 15-00323-WBS-KJN on February 9, 2015.
1

1

effort, either because the same result should follow in both actions
or otherwise; or

2
3

(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of
labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate
Judges.

4
5
6

E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a).
These cases are not related as defined by the Local Rule. Although both include

7

Save Mart as a defendant and include allegations linked to Save Mart’s attendance policy, the

8

plaintiffs in each are different individuals who advance different claims for relief on the basis of

9

different factual allegations. Relating these cases would not be “likely to effect a substantial

10
11
12

savings of judicial effort” or avoid “substantial duplication of labor.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 6, 2015.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2