Postlewaite et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 50

ORDER Denying Motion to Relate Case to Case No. C-11-4563. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/19/2013. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

PAMELA POSTLEWAITE,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RELATE CASES

WELLS FARGO, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-4563 PJH

Defendants.
_____________________________/

12
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) has filed a motion to relate
13
Postlewaite v. Wells Fargo Bank, C-12-4465, to the above-entitled action.
14
Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, a action is related to another when
15
16
17
18
19
20

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction
or event; and
(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.
Civ. L.R. 3-12(a).
The motion is DENIED. While the two actions do concern substantially the same

21

parties, property, transaction or event, the court finds that there will not be an unduly

22

burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are not

23

related. Case No. C-11-4563 was dismissed in June 2012 for failure to prosecute.

24

Although Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss, and the court found that the complaint

25

failed to state a claim, the claims against Wells Fargo were dismissed because the

26

complaint had been filed by only one of the alleged property-owners, who subsequently

27

also failed to prosecute.

28

By contrast, the complaint in Case No. C-12-4465 was filed by both of the former

1

property owners, and the plaintiffs assert different causes of action than the single plaintiff

2

did in Case No. C-11-4563. The assigned district judge has ruled on two motions to

3

dismiss, granting one with leave to amend, and denying the other because of the existence

4

disputed factual issues. Not only is there no risk of duplication or effort or conflicting results

5

if the cases are not related, it is relating the cases that would likely lead to duplication of

6

effort.

7

In addition, the court notes that Wells Fargo failed to “promptly” file its administrative

8

motion to relate cases. See Civ. L.R. 3-12(b). Wells Fargo removed this case on August

9

24, 2012, yet waited until July 23, 2013 to file its motion to relate cases, after the assigned
district judge had already ruled on the motions noted above.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: August 19, 2013

14

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2