Wallace et al v. City Of San Jose

Filing 68

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 66 plaintiffs' Motion to Relate Cases. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2018)

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
DARREN WALLACE, et al.,

12

Case No.5:16-cv-04914-HRL

Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO RELATE CASES

v.

14

CITY OF SAN JOSE,

15

Re: Dkt. No. 66

Defendant.

16
17

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 3-12, plaintiffs move to relate the instant action (hereafter, Wallace)

18
19

to several others, more recently filed.1 Wallace is assigned to this court upon the consent of all

20

parties. As both sides have advised the court, however, the plaintiffs in the more recently filed

21

cases have declined magistrate judge jurisdiction. Thus, plaintiffs request that the newer actions

22

“be related to Wallace but be assigned to the appropriate Article II Judge.” (Dkt. 66 at 9). For

23

various reasons, defendant City of San Jose (City) objects to plaintiffs’ request, which the City

24

views as an impermissible attempt at “judge shopping.”

25
26
27
28

1

The proposed related actions are 3:18-cv-01383-JD Barnett, et al. v. City of San Jose; 5:18-cv01386-BLF Crivelo, et al. v. City of San Jose; 5:18-cv-01390-EJD Ryan, et al. v. City of San Jose;
5:18-cv-01393-EJD Belton, et al. v. City of San Jose; 5:18-cv-01394-LHK Escobar, et al. v. City
of San Jose; 5:18-cv-01403-LHK Conde, et al. v. City of San Jose; 3:18-cv-01406-WHO Westcott,
et al. v. City of San Jose.

1

It is this court’s understanding that, due to plaintiffs’ declination of magistrate judge

2

jurisdiction in the newer actions, if this court were to relate Wallace to the more recently filed

3

actions, then all cases, including Wallace, would be reassigned to a District Judge. Based on that

4

understanding, this court declines to relate the cases because doing so would not serve the interest

5

of judicial economy. Wallace is at the dispositive motion stage. The parties have submitted briefs

6

on summary judgment; the court held a lengthy hearing on the matter and stands poised to issue its

7

ruling on that motion. If all cases were to be related, the present action would be reassigned, and

8

all of this court’s work will have been for nothing. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to relate cases

9

is denied. The court suggests that plaintiffs may wish to ask the judge assigned to the next lowest

10

case number whether the more recently filed actions should be related.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: April 27, 2018

13
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

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