Oliver v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Seeborg denying without prejudice 19 Motion to Relate Case (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2012)

Download PDF
1 **E-filed 3/15/2012** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 K. OLIVER, v. No. C 12-0943 RS Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE CASES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. ____________________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion in this action seeking to have Zody v. Microsoft, C 12-0942 YGR 17 related hereto and reassigned to the undersigned. Both this case and Zody were originally filed in 18 state court, and were removed here on February 24, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b), a 19 motion to relate is to be filed in the “earliest filed case,” and, if granted, results in reassignment of 20 the later-filed case to the judge presiding over the older case. Plaintiff recognizes that in this 21 instance, Zody bears the lower case number, reflecting that it was removed to this court first. 22 Plaintiff contends that this action nevertheless qualifies as the “earliest filed,” because it was filed in 23 state court two days before Zody was filed in that court. The two removal notices were presented to 24 the Clerk’s Office in this court at essentially the same time, and it was apparently mere 25 happenstance that this action was on top, and processed first. 26 Construing the term “earliest filed case” in Rule 3-12(b) as referring to filing dates in other 27 courts would in at least some instances undermine the purposes served by the rule. For example, if 28 a particular judge became familiar with a case that had been pending in this court for some time, it 1 1 would make no sense to reassign it to another judge who happened to draw a newly-removed action 2 that had been filed in state court on some date prior to the filing or removal of the lower numbered 3 case. While the present situation does not present a similar concern given that this action and Zody 4 are both new to this court, it would not be appropriate to assign different meanings to the phrase 5 “earliest filed case” depending on the particular circumstances. Additionally, under the random 6 assignment system, a defendant removing multiple cases cannot deliberately seek a strategic 7 advantage by selecting the order in which to present notices of removal for filing. 8 Accordingly, Zody is the “earliest filed case” within the meaning of Rule 3-12(b), and the 9 motion to relate it to this action must be denied. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 motion in Zody to have this case related thereto. The question of whether the two actions qualify as 11 “related cases” under the rule had not been considered or decided. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 17 Dated: March 15, 2012 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?