MEJIA-MEJIA v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT et al

Filing 15

ORDER re counsel's obligations under the Court's Local Rule 40.5 re related cases. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 7, 2018. (MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________
)
BEATA MARIANA DE JESUS MEJIA-MEJIA, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
)
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
)
CLAUDIA ARELY MOLINA DE RAMIREZ,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III,
)
in his official capacity as Attorney General
)
of the United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
)
NORMA AMABILIA LOPEZ-SALES,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III,
)
in his official capacity as Attorney General
)
of the United States, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 18-1445 (PLF)

Civil Action No. 18-1516 (PLF)

Civil Action No. 18-1700 (PLF)

ORDER
The Court currently has before it three related cases that have been filed by the
law firm of McFadden & Shoreman, LLC: Civil Action No. 18-1445, Mejia-Mejia v. ICE; Civil
Action No. 18-1516, Ramirez v. Sessions; and Civil Action No. 18-1700, Lopez-Sales v.
Sessions. In each of these cases, the same Georgia attorney, Mario B. Williams, was granted
leave to appear pro hac vice. Civil Action No. 18-1445 was randomly assigned to the
undersigned in the ordinary course. Civil Action Nos. 18-1516 and 18-1700 were transferred to
the undersigned by other judges of this Court as related cases. In neither of these latter cases did
plaintiffs’ counsel identify them as related cases under Local Civil Rule 40.5. The Court issues
this Order to remind counsel of their obligations under the Court’s Local Rules.
Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3) provides that civil cases are related when they involve
“common issues of fact” or “grow out of the same event or transaction.” Local Civil Rule 40.5
provides an exception to the random assignment system and is based on the need for judicial
economy. As Judge Lamberth has explained: “It will often prove wasteful of time and resources
for two judges to be handling cases that are so related that they involve common factual issues or
grow out of the same event or transaction.” See Tripp v. Exec. Office of President, 196 F.R.D.
201, 202 (D.D.C. 2000).
Recently, in Singh v. McConville, 187 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D.D.C. 2016), Chief
Judge Howell held that related case status was appropriate because the court would “be required
to make similar factual determinations in both cases related to the defendants’ process for issuing
religious accommodations, the defendants’ justifications for their regulations and policies, and
the defendants’ discriminatory conduct and/or intent, if any.” See id. at 156. In addition, both
cases sought essentially the same relief, including a permanent injunction. See id. at 157. See

2

also Autumn Journey Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 753 F. Supp. 2d 135, 140 (D.D.C. 2010) (Urbina,
J.); Assiniboine & Sioux Tribe of Fort Peck Indian Reservation v. Norton, 211 F. Supp. 2d 157,
158 (D.D.C. 2002) (Lamberth, J.).
Henceforth, if counsel file any additional cases in this Court, they are required to
read and follow the Local Rules. They may decline to designate cases as related only if they
believe in good faith, consistent with their professional responsibilities as officers of the Court,
that the cases are genuinely not related.
SO ORDERED.

__________/s/__________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge

DATE: August 7, 2018

3