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)

Download PDF
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

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?