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)

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