Langone v. Del Monte Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 12/19/2012. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 10 CHRISTOPHER V. LANGONE, and others, Plaintiffs, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 12-cv-04671 NC ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES v. DEL MONTE CORPORATION, MILO’S KITCHEN, LLC, KROGER CO., and KING SOOPERS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 6 Defendants. On December 18, 2012, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to consider whether 17 this case should be related to Ruff v. Del Monte Corporation, 12-cv-05251 SC, currently 18 pending before Judge Conti, and Funke v. Del Monte Corporation, 12-cv-05323 MEJ, 19 currently pending before Judge James. Local Rule 3-12(b) requires plaintiffs to serve a 20 copy of the motion on “all known parties to each apparently related action.” Plaintiffs’ 21 declaration of service, Dkt. No. 9, does not indicate that the parties in Ruff or Funke were 22 served; nor do the dockets. Accordingly, plaintiffs must certify that they have served all 23 parties in compliance with Local Rules 3-12(b), 5-6(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1746. In addition, 24 the parties will have until January 2, 2013 to file an opposition to or support for plaintiffs’ 25 motion to relate in accordance with Local Rules 3-12(e) and 7-11(b). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Date: December 19, 2012 28 Case No. 12-cv-04671 NC ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge

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?