Hettinga et al v. Loumena et al

Filing 7

ORDER RE: 6 JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS CASE IS RELATED TO CASE NOS. C 09-0253-JW AND C 09-6040-JW. Accordingly, the Court finds that Hettinga v. Loumena, Case No. C 10-2975-PVT is not related to Hettinga v. Orlando, Case No. C 09-0253-JW and Hettinga v. Hammon, Case No. C 09-6040-JW within the meaning of Rule 3-12(a). Signed by Judge James Ware on 11/5/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2010)

Hettinga et al v. Loumena et al

Doc. 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wylmina Hettinga, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 10-02975-PVT ORDER RE: JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS CASE IS RELATED TO CASE NOS. C 09-0253-JW AND C 09-6040-JW /

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Timothy Loumena, et al., Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Trumbull's Order Referring this Case for Consideration of Whether Case is Related. (See Docket Item No. 6.) The Order seeks the Court's determination as to whether Hettinga v. Loumena, Case No. C 10-2975-PVT (the "Third Action"), should be related to Hettinga v. Orlando, Case No. C 09-0253-JW (the "Second Action") and Hettinga v. Hammon, Case No. C 09-6040-JW (the "First Action"). Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides: An action is related to another action when: (1) (2) The action concerns substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and 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.

Here, while the Court finds the actions involve some overlapping parties, the Third Action contains both Defendants and causes of actions that are absent from the First and Second Actions.1

(Compare Complaint, C 10-02975-PVT, hereafter, "Third Complaint," Docket Item No. 1 with First Amended Complaint, C 09-0253-JW, hereafter, "First Complaint," Docket Item No. 20.)

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

For example, while the previously related cases focus exclusively on allegedly illegal recordings of Plaintiff's conversations with her minor children, Plaintiff's claims in the Third Action focus on an alleged conspiracy by Defendants to deprive Plaintiff of real property. (See Third Complaint at 1318.) Moreover, there is no risk of inconsistent judgments, as both the First and Second Action have been dismissed by the Court. Thus, the Court finds that there is no risk of "unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges." Accordingly, the Court finds that Hettinga v. Loumena, Case No. C 10-2975-PVT is not related to Hettinga v. Orlando, Case No. C 09-0253-JW and Hettinga v. Hammon, Case No. C 096040-JW within the meaning of Rule 3-12(a). IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Dated: November 5, 2010 JAMES WARE United States District Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Wylmina E. Hettinga [e-mail] Wylmina E Hettinga 844 Downswood Court San Jose, CA 95120 Dated: November 5, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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