Bolbol et al v. Feld Entertainment, Inc et al

Filing 36

ORDER re 34 Order finding that cases are not related. Signed by Judge James Ware on March 13, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 11-05539 PSG

Deniz Bolbol, et al.,

11

ORDER FINDING THAT CASES ARE
NOT RELATED

Plaintiffs,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Feld Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/
Presently before the Court is an Order Referring Case to Chief Judge James Ware for Related

16

Case Consideration. (hereafter, “Referral Order,” Docket Item No. 34.) In the Referral Order,

17

Judge Grewal refers the above-captioned matter to the Court for a determination of whether it is

18

related to Bolbol v. HP Pavilion Management, No. C 04-00082 JW (the “2004 Case”). (Id. at 1.) In

19

particular, Judge Grewal indicates that the two cases may be related, insofar as: (1) the two cases

20

involve “substantially the same parties”; and (2) adjudication of this case is “likely to require a

21

determination [of] the scope of the permanent injunction previously issued [in the 2004 Case] and

22

[of] whether [this Court’s] earlier rulings have a preclusive effect on claims being brought in this

23

case.” (Id.) Defendant Feld Entertainment, Inc. (“Feld”) has filed an Opposition in which it

24

contends that this case should not be related to the 2004 Case, insofar as: (1) Defendant Feld was

25

dismissed from the 2004 Case “early on,” and the judgment and permanent injunction issued in that

26

case in 2006 only involved the other Defendants in that case; (2) although the “bulk of [Plaintiffs’

27

Complaint] concerns conduct that allegedly occurred in the County of Santa Clara, in the City of San

28

Jose,” Chief Judge Ware is currently located in the San Francisco Division rather than the San Jose

1

Division, which means that transferring the case to Chief Judge Ware would “place an undue burden

2

on the parties”; and (3) although issues raised in the Complaint in this case “were already litigated in

3

the [2004 Case], Judge Grewal may “readily determine[]” the relation of the permanent injunction

4

and other rulings issued in the 2004 Case by “reviewing the language” of those documents “and

5

comparing them to the issues raised in [the Complaint].”1

6

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides:

7

An action is related to another action when:

8

(1)

The action concerns substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and

9

(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.

10
meaning of Civil L.R. 3-12. In particular, the Court finds that on April 14, 2004, it dismissed
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Upon review, the Court finds that this case is not related to the 2004 Case within the
11
12
13

Defendant Feld from the 2004 Case.2 On August 30, 2006, the Court issued a permanent injunction
against another Defendant in the 2004 Case–namely, Defendant HP Pavilion Management.3 The

14
permanent injunction pertained solely to the HP Pavilion in San Jose. (Id.) By contrast, Plaintiffs’
15
allegations in this case appear to center on conduct allegedly undertaken by Defendant Feld and its
16

employees.4 Moreover, the Complaint alleges that venue is proper in Santa Clara County because

17
“the facts supporting each of [the] causes of action arise out of conduct undertaken by [Defendants]
18
in the City of San Jose and County of Santa Clara.” (Complaint ¶ 3.) Thus, under the Civil Local
19
20
21

1

(Response of Feld Entertainment, Inc. in Opposition to Relating Cases Pursuant to Civil
L.R. 3-12 at 3-4, Docket Item No. 35.)
2

22

(See Order Granting Feld Entertainment’s Motion to Dismiss, Docket Item No. 29 in No.
C 04-00082 JW.)

23
24

3

(See Judgment and Permanent Injunction at 2-3, Docket Item No. 332 in No. C 04-00082

JW.)
4

27

(See Feld Entertainment, Inc.’s Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)
(Diversity); Demand for Jury Trial, Ex. A, Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief ¶¶ 23-25,
hereafter, “Complaint,” Docket Item No. 1 (alleging, inter alia, that “Feld Entertainment, Inc.
employees” “would swat . . . mounted pictures at Plaintiffs’ and [others’] cameras in an attempt to
hit the cameras” and that a “Feld Entertainment, Inc., [sic] employee aimed a fire hose over [a] wall
where Plaintiffs were standing.”).)

28

2

25
26

1

Rules, venue for this case is properly in the San Jose Division. Civ. L.R. 3-2(e). However, the

2

Court is now located in the San Francisco Division, which means that a transfer of this case to the

3

Court would serve neither the “convenience of parties and witnesses” nor the “interests of justice.”

4

Id. 3-2(h).

5

Accordingly, the Court finds that this case is not related to the 2004 Case.

6
7
8

Dated: March 13, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

3

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

G. Whitney Leigh [e-mail]
James McManis [e-mail]
Marwa Elzankaly [e-mail]
Rubina Kazi [e-mail]

3
4
5

Dated: March 13, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

6
By:
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy