Harris et al v. Abbas et al

Filing 19

ORDER FINDING CASES NOT RELATED. The court finds that 13-80030 and 13-80060 are not related pursuant to the definition contained in Rule 3-12(a). No reassignments shall occur. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/29/2013.(ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:13-mc-80030 EJD

SETH D. HARRIS, Acting Secretary of
Labor, United States Department of Labor,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER FINDING CASES
NOT RELATED

12

Petitioner(s),
v.

13
14

[Docket Item No(s). 11]
SAYED HASAN ABBAS dba AAA
YELLOW CAB, et. al.,

15
Respondent(s).
16

/

17

Petitioner Seth D. Harris, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor (the “Secretary”),

18

presently moves the court to consider whether the above-entitled action (“13-80030") is related to a

19

later-filed subpoena enforcement action, Case No. 3:13-mc-80060 SI (“13-80060"), which is

20

currently pending in the San Francisco Division before Judge Susan Illston. See Docket Item No.

21

11.

22

In this district, cases are considered “related” when two elements are satisfied:

23

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property,
transaction or event; and

24
25

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome
duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are
conducted before different Judges.

26
27
28

Civ. L. R. 3-12(a).
Here, the first element of Rule 3-12(a) is easily satisfied. Without doubt, the same parties,
1
CASE NO. 5:13-mc-80030 EJD
ORDER FINDING CASES NOT RELATED

1

events and issues are involved in both actions; indeed, the actions are essentially identical, 13-80060

2

being the reincarnation of 13-80030.

3

But while the actions meet the definition contained in the first element of Rule 3-12(a), the

reflects, this court dismissed the Secretary’s original Petition due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

6

See Docket Item No. 9. Although this dismissal came with the caveat that the Secretary could re-file

7

another Petition and commence a new action (which he did), this result nonetheless terminated this

8

court’s involvement in the parties’ ongoing dispute. Since the jurisdictional defect was foundational

9

and dispositive, no further action or analysis was necessary. Accordingly, this court did not acquire

10

any insight from its limited involvement in 13-80030, such that the reassignment of 13-80060 would

11
For the Northern District of California

circumstances surrounding them do not satisfy the second element. As the docket in 13-80030

5

United States District Court

4

be efficient. In fact, save for some passing commentary during the one limited hearing it held with

12

these parties, the court never reached the substance of the action.

13

For these reasons, there is neither an “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense”

14

nor a potential for “conflicting results” that could materialize if the cases remain assigned to

15

different Judges. The court therefore finds that 13-80030 and 13-80060 are not related pursuant to

16

the definition contained in Rule 3-12(a). No reassignments shall occur, and a copy of this Order

17

shall be filed in both cases.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: May 29, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
CASE NO. 5:13-mc-80030 EJD
ORDER FINDING CASES NOT RELATED