Campbell et al v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying motion to relate cases. This case is not related to Case Nos. C00-4599 TEH, C03-2961 TEH, C03-2962 TEH, or C11-2867 TEH. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/23/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

6
7
8

Plaintiffs,

NO. C00-4599 TEH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RELATE CASES

v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

9

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
TIMOTHY SCOTT CAMPBELL,
et al.,
NO. C11-5498 RS

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Respondents.

16
17
18

These matters come before this Court on the Campbell plaintiffs’ administrative

19 motion to determine whether Campbell v. City of Oakland, Case No. C11-5498 RS, is related
20 to Allen v. City of Oakland, Case No. 00-4599 TEH; Coles v. City of Oakland, Case
21 No. 03-2961 TEH; Local 10, International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. City of
22 Oakland, Case No. 03-2962 TEH; and Spalding v. City of Oakland, C11-2867 TEH. After
23 carefully considering both the moving papers and the timely opposition filed by the City of
24 Oakland, the Court concludes that these cases are not related.
25

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) defines cases to be related if they “concern substantially the

26 same parties, property, transaction or event,” and “[i]t appears likely that there will be an
27 unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are
28 conducted before different Judges.” These cases do not satisfy either part of this definition.

1 First, while there is some overlap in defendants, none of the plaintiffs in Campbell are or
2 were plaintiffs in any of the other cases. Nor do any of the cases before this Court concern
3 the same events that form the basis of the complaint in Campbell. Second, the Campbell
4 plaintiffs have failed to persuade the Court that there is likely to be an unduly burdensome
5 duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if this Court does not preside over the
6 Campbell litigation. While there may well be some overlap in issues, that is not the test for
7 relating cases; indeed, implicit in Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) is the principle that single judges
8 of this Court do not become responsible for all cases arising in one area of law, even when
9 some of the same parties are involved. Thus, for example, although this Court oversees

11 to use of force and internal affairs investigations, it is not this Court’s province to relate all
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10 reforms in the Oakland Police Department in Allen, and those reforms include issues related

12 cases that allege excessive use of force by Oakland police officers or all cases involving
13 allegations on which the Department has conducted an internal affairs investigation.
14

In light of all of the above, the Court does not find Campbell to be related, as defined

15 by Civil Local Rule 3-12, to any of the four cases over which this Court has presided. The
16 Campbell plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED.
17
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20 Dated: 11/23/11
21

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2