Murphy v. The Bank of New York Mellon et al

Filing 53

Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re C-14-2030 JSC. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 6/18/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THERESA LYNNE MURPHY,

Case No. 14-cv-02030-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.,

SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL
FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING
WHEHTER CASES ARE RELATED

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Theresa Lynne Murphy, proceeding pro se, filed this civil complaint concerning

14

certain real property located at 11 High Street, No. 201, San Francisco, California on May 2,

15

2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff previously filed three other civil suits in this district against many

16

of the same defendants concerning the same real property, see Murphy v. Bank of New York

17

Mellon, Nos. 13-cv-2424 JST, 13-cv-2752 JST, 13-cv-2820 JST. Judge Tigar related case

18

numbers 13-cv-2424 and 13-cv-2752 and the cases were dismissed for lack of subject matter

19

jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a new case, No. 13-cv-2820, which was related to

20

the prior actions. Judge Tigar dismissed that action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on

21

October 30, 2013. See No. 13-cv-2820, Dkt. No. 46. Plaintiff appealed that dismissal to the

22

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Dkt. No. 47), but subsequently moved to voluntarily dismiss her

23

appeal. See Murphy v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 13-17351, Dkt. No. 5 (9th Cir.). The

24

same day Plaintiff moved to dismiss her appeal, she filed a new civil action here which was

25

assigned to the undersigned, see Murphy v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 14-cv-2030 JSC. The

26

new action concerns the same real property subject to the prior actions and involves many of the

27

same parties.

28

In light of the similarities between these cases, and given that Judge Tigar has related

1

Plaintiff’s prior actions regarding the same real property, the undersigned respectfully refers the

2

above-captioned action to Judge Tigar pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(c) to consider whether this

3

case is related to the 13-2424, 13-2752 and 13-2820 actions.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2