Conde et al v. City of San Jose

Filing 12

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

Download PDF
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

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?