Elder v. Silva et al

Filing 29

RELATED CASE ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/3/2020 ORDERING that this case be related to case number 2:18-cv-3215-KJM-DMC (PC) and that the related case be reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota remains assigned to both action. (Huang, H) Modified on 2/5/2020 (Huang, H).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY JEROME ELDER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-01925-TLN-DMC

v.
SILVA; SPEERS; D. HOGAN;
WHITCOME; JOKSCH; J. RAMSEY; and
BRADETT,

16

Defendants.

17

COREY JEROME ELDER,

18

Plaintiff,

19
20
21

No. 2:18-cv-03215-KJM-DMC

v.
SILVA; JOKSCH; and BRADETT,

RELATED CASE ORDER

Defendants.

22
23

Defendants filed a joint Notice of Related Cases in the above-captioned actions on

24

January 13, 2020. (ECF Nos. 28 and 20, respectively.) Examination of the above-captioned

25

actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997).

26

Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern

27

District of California, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on

28
1

1

a same or similar claim; when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when they

2

“involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same

3

Judge . . . is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort.” L.R. 123(a). Further,

4

[i]f the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number
has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a
single Judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort or other
economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning all
higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.

5
6
7
8

L.R. 123(c).
Here, the actions involve the same parties, are based on the same claims arising from the

9

same underlying alleged facts, and involve the same questions of law. Indeed, it appears the

10

entirety of Plaintiff’s second-filed action is wholly encompassed by his first. Consequently,

11

assignment to the same judge would “effect a substantial savings of judicial effort.” L.R. 123(a),

12

see also L.R. 123(c).

13

Relating the cases under Local Rule 123, however, merely has the result that both actions

14

are assigned to the same judge, it does not consolidate the actions. Under the regular practice of

15

this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the

16

first filed action was assigned. Should either party wish to consolidate the actions or dismiss the

17

latter as duplicative, the appropriate motion or stipulation must be filed.

18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:18-cv-03215-KJM-DMC

19

is reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley, and the caption shall read 2:18-cv-03215-TLN-

20

DMC. Magistrate Judge Cota remains assigned to both actions. The Motion to Stay filed January

21

13, 2020, shall remain on calendar and any briefing dates on that motion are unchanged.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 3, 2020

24
25
26
27
28

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
2