Lusby v. Gamestop, Inc et al

Filing 20

ORDER FINDING CASES NOT RELATED. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 9, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
THOMAS LUSBY,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 11-05361 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER FINDING
CASES NOT RELATED

GAMESTOP, INC., and GAMESTOP
Corporation,
Defendants.
/

16
17

Pursuant to an order by Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd, the parties in this purported

18

class action have filed administrative motions to consider whether cases should be related under

19

Civil Local Rule 3-12. The two cases at issue are: (1) the earlier-filed Lusby v. Gamestop Inc. et

20

al., Case No. CV 11-05361 WHA, and (2) the later-filed Lusby v. Gamestop, Inc., et al., Case

21

No. CV 12-03783 HRL. Both parties agree that the cases are not related. For the reasons stated

22

below, this order also finds that the cases are not related under Local Rule 3-12.

23

Local Rule 3-12(a) requires both substantial similarity and a showing of “unduly

24

burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted

25

before different Judges.” While the former requirement is satisfied, the latter requirement is not.

26

The earlier action before the undersigned was voluntarily dismissed eight months ago; and

27

therefore, there is no risk that there will be conflicting decisions by different judges. Notably,

28

the only substantive filings in the earlier-filed action were plaintiff’s complaint and defendants’

1

answer. There was not a single hearing and the matter was voluntarily dismissed prior to the

2

initial case management conference. Thus, there will not be a duplication of labor if the

3

later-filed action remains with Judge Lloyd. In fact, relating the later-filed action would cause a

4

duplication of labor, as the undersigned would need to reconsider a pending motion for

5

preliminary approval of class settlement that Judge Lloyd has already reviewed and conducted a

6

hearing on.

7

Although the actions are not related under Local Rule 3-12, the undersigned would like

undersigned has a general practice of issuing a “notice regarding factors to be evaluated for any

10

proposed class settlement” for purported class actions and did so for the earlier-filed action (Dkt.

11
For the Northern District of California

to note his suspicions as to why the parties voluntarily dismissed the earlier-filed action. The

9

United States District Court

8

No. 10). The notice prohibits discussion of class settlement before certification (id. at ¶10). The

12

parties voluntarily dismissed the earlier-filed action shortly after receiving this notice. After

13

dismissal, the parties participated in private mediation and subsequently reached a class

14

settlement (Gonell Decl. ¶3). Now, the parties have a pending motion for preliminary approval

15

of that settlement before Judge Lloyd. The undersigned wishes to inform Judge Lloyd that the

16

parties’ conduct has eluded the undersigned’s notice prohibiting settlement discussion prior to

17

certification.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 9, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2