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).

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?