Ridola v. Motel 6 Operating L.P. et al

Filing 15

ORDER DECLINING TO RELATE CASES (re 13 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/9/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2016) Modified on 5/9/2016 (blflc1S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

RACHELLE RIDOLA,

Case No. 16-cv-01111-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DECLINING TO RELATE
CASES

9
10

MOTEL 6 OPERATING L.P., et al.,

[Re: ECF 13]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On April 29, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Related Cases “solely for the purpose of

14

complying with Local Rule 3-12,” indicating that the present case is related to a later-filed action,

15

Ridola v. G6 Hospitality Property LLC, et al., Case No. 16-cv-02038-EJD. Defs.’ Notice of

16

Related Cases, ECF 13.

17

Local Rule 3-12 provides in relevant part that:

18

Whenever a party knows or learns that an action, filed or removed to this district is
(or the party believes that the action may be) related to an action which is or was
pending in this District as defined in Civil L.R. 3-12(a), the party must promptly
file in the lowest-numbered case an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether
Cases Should be Related, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11.

19
20
21

Civ. L.R. 3-12(b). Defendants did not comply with this provision, as they did not file an

22

administrative motion for determination of related case status, but instead filed a Notice of Related

23

Cases. However, since Defendants’ Notice states expressly that it is filed pursuant to Civil Local

24

Rule 3-12, the Court construes the Notice as the required administrative motion.

25

While the parties are the same in both cases, the case before this Court is based upon

26

alleged barriers to access for disabled persons at a motel located in Campbell, California while the

27

later-filed action is based upon alleged barriers to access at a motel located in San Jose, California.

28

Plaintiff stayed at the motels on different dates and the barriers encountered at the two motels are

1

not identical. Because the issues and evidence will be different in each case, it does not appear

2

“likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting

3

results if the cases are conducted before different Judges” as required for a determination of

4

related case status. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(2).

5

The Court DECLINES TO RELATE the cases.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: May 9, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2