Balik v. City of Cedar Falls et al

Filing 73

ORDER finding that cases are not related. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 9/27/2016. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JEREMIAH W. BALIK,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK

Plaintiff,

ORDER FINDING THAT CASES ARE
NOT RELATED

v.
CITY OF CEDAR FALLS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On September 21, 2016, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. referred the case

19

Balik v. Sprint. Inc. (“Sprint”), No. 16-CV-05101 to the undersigned for the purpose of

20

determining whether Sprint is related to Balik v. City of Cedar Falls, No. 16-CV-04070. ECF No.

21

5 in the Sprint docket. Neither party filed an opposition to or support for the relation of these two

22

cases, and the time to do so has now passed. Civ. L.R. 3-12(c), 3-12(e), 7-11(b) (providing that an

23

opposition or support must be filed “no later than 4 days” after the judicial referral).

24

An action is related to another when (1) the actions “concern substantially the same parties,

25

property, transaction, or event;” and (2) it “appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome

26

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

27

Judges.” Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that Sprint and

28

1
Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK
ORDER FINDING THAT CASES ARE NOT RELATED

1
2

Cedar Falls are not related under Civil Local Rule 3-12.
First, the two cases involve different sets of defendants. In Sprint, Plaintiff Jeremiah Balik

3

(“Balik”) sues Sprint, Inc., Time Warner Cable, Inc., Next Generation Wireless, and Telephone

4

and Data Systems, Inc.

5

In Cedar Falls, Balik sues the City of Cedar Falls, Iowa; the City of San Jose, California;

6

the City of Ventura, California; the City of Santa Clara, California; the Los Angeles County

7

Sheriff’s Department; the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department; the San Diego County

8

Sheriff’s Department; and Next Generation Wireless.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Thus, the two cases do not share ten defendants. Only Next Generation Wireless is a
defendant in both cases.
Second, the gravamen of the two cases are different. In Sprint, Balik asserts a claim for

12

racial discrimination in employment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code

13

§ 12900, which was not asserted in Cedar Falls. In Cedar Falls, Balik’s claims center on

14

allegedly improper police patrolling and the issuance of traffic citations to Balik in, among other

15

locations, San Jose, Ventura, Oakland, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Diego.

16

Balik does not raise these incidents in Sprint.

17

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Sprint and Cedar Falls are not related under Civil

18

Local Rule 3-12. A copy of this order shall be filed in the Sprint docket.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: September 27, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 16-CV-04070-LHK
ORDER FINDING THAT CASES ARE NOT RELATED