No Casino In Plymouth et al v. National Indian Gaming Commission et al

Filing 48

RELATED CASE ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/3/2020 ORDERING that the action denominated 2:20-cv-01358-MCE-KJN is reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, and the caption shall read 2:20-cv-01358-TLN-CKD. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COUNTY OF AMADOR,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

NO CASINO IN PLYMOUTH, et al.,

18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR, et al.,

26
27
28

RELATED CASE ORDER

Defendants.
NO CASINO IN PLYMOUTH, et al.,

24
25

No. 2:12-cv-01748-TLN-CMK

v.

22
23

No. 2:12-cv-01710-TLN-CKD

Plaintiff,

No. 2:18-cv-01398-TLN-CKD

v.
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING
COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.
1

1
NO CASINO IN PLYMOUTH, et al.,
2
Plaintiffs,

No. 2:20-cv-01358-MCE-KJN

3
v.
4
RYAN HUNTER, et al.,
5
Defendants.
6
7
8
9

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Notice of Related Case (ECF No. 5) filed in 2:20-cv01358-MCE-KJN. Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related

10

within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules

11

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, actions are related when

12

they involve the same parties and are based on a same or similar claim; when they involve the

13

same transaction, property, or event; or when they “involve similar questions of fact and the same

14

question of law and their assignment to the same Judge . . . is likely to effect a substantial savings

15

of judicial effort.” L.R. 123(a). Further,

16

[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.

17
18
19
20

L.R. 123(c).
Here, the actions involve similar and sometimes overlapping parties, are based on the

21

same or similar background facts, and involve similar questions of law. At a minimum, it appears

22

the actions involve the review of the same lengthy administrative record. Consequently,

23

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

24

see also L.R. 123(c).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

filed action was assigned.
2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:20-cv-01358-MCE-KJN is

2

reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, and the

3

caption shall read 2:20-cv-01358-TLN-CKD. Any dates currently set in 2:20-cv-01358-MCE-

4

KJN are hereby VACATED, and the parties are ordered to refile any pending motions before this

5

Court. The Clerk of the Court is to issue the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 3, 2020

8
9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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