Marinello v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CTF- Soledadet al

Filing 8

ORDER re 7 Order. Signed by Judge James Ware on January 20, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2012)

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 11-06682 PSG

Rosario Marinello,

11

ORDER FINDING THAT CASES SHOULD
NOT BE RELATED

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab.,
13
Defendant.
14

/

15

On January 4, 2012, Magistrate Judge Grewal referred the above-captioned case to Chief

16

Judge Ware for consideration of whether it is related to an earlier case.1 Judge Grewal requested

17

that the Court consider whether this case is related to Rosario Marinello v. California Department of

18

Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. C 08-00664 JW (the “2008 Action”). (Id. at 1-2.)

19

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides:

20

An action is related to another action when:

21

(1)

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

22

(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.

23
Upon review, the Court finds that this case should not be related to the 2008 Action.
24
Defendant is the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, which is located in Monterey
25
26
27
1

28

(Order Referring Case to Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware for Related Case
Consideration, Docket Item No. 7.)

1

County.2 Further, the alleged employment discrimination that is the subject of the Complaint in this

2

case took place in Soledad. (Id.) Under the Local Rules of the Northern District, the San Jose

3

Division is the proper venue for all civil actions of this type which arise in Monterey County. See

4

Civ. L.R. 3-2. Therefore, the Court finds that this case should remain in the San Jose Division,

5

which precludes relating it to the 2008 Action.3

6

Accordingly, the Court finds that this case should not be related to the 2008 Action.

7
8
9

Dated: January 20, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

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

2

26

3

(See Employment Discrimination Complaint ¶¶ 2-6, Docket Item No. 1.)

27

On December 10, 2009, the Court entered judgment in the 2008 Action, which terminated
that case. (See Docket Item No. 99 in No. C 08-00664 JW.) Subsequently, Chief Judge Ware
moved from the San Jose Division to the San Francisco Division of the Northern District.

28

2

1

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

2

Rosario Marinello
266 Reservaton Road
#f232
Marina, CA 93933

3
4
5

Dated: January 20, 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