Yardstash Solutions, LLC v. Marketfleet, Inc.

Filing 75

RELATED CASE ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/31/19 ORDERING that the action denominated 2:18-cv-02465-JAM-CKD is reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, and the caption shall read 2:18-cv-02465-TLN-AC. Any dates currently set in 2:18-cv-02465-JAM-CKD are hereby VACATED, and the parties are ordered to refile any pending motions before this Court. The Clerk of the Court is to issue the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YARDSTASH SOLUTIONS, LLC,

12

Plaintiff and CounterDefendant,

13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-00385-TLN-AC

v.
MARKETFLEET, INC., et al.,
Defendant and CounterClaimant.

16
17
18

MARKETFLEET PUERTO RICO, INC.,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22

No. 2:18-cv-02465-JAM-CKD

v.
YARDSTASH SOLUTIONS, LLC,

RELATED CASE ORDER

Defendant.

23
24

The Court has reviewed YardStash Solutions’s Notice of Related Case filed on April 19,

25

2019, in both above-captioned actions. (ECF Nos. 70, 24, respectively.) Examination of the

26

above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D.

27

Cal. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the

28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Further,

6

[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.

7
8
9

L.R. 123(c).

10

Here, the actions involve almost-identical (if not identical) parties, are based on the same

11

or similar facts, and involve the same and/or related questions of law. Consequently, assignment

12

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

13

L.R. 123(c).

14

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

15

are assigned to the same judge, it does not consolidate the actions. Should any party wish to

16

consolidate the actions, that party may file a motion to consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 42(a). If the parties agree that consolidation is appropriate, they may file a joint

18

motion or stipulation, along with a proposed order.

19

Under the regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge

20

and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. IT IS THEREFORE

21

ORDERED that the action denominated 2:18-cv-02465-JAM-CKD is reassigned to District Judge

22

Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, and the caption shall read 2:18-cv-02465-

23

TLN-AC. Any dates currently set in 2:18-cv-02465-JAM-CKD are hereby VACATED, and the

24

parties are ordered to refile any pending motions before this Court. The Clerk of the Court is to

25

issue the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 31, 2019

3
4
5
6

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3