Sussex et al v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC et al

Filing 99

ORDER Denying 96 Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer Second-Filed Case to First-Filed Case. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 3/8/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11

MARY ANN SUSSEX, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
TURNBERRY/MGM GRAND TOWERS,
LLC, et al.,

15
16

Case No.: 2:08-cv-00773-RLH-PAL
ORDER
(Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer–#96)

Defendants.
_______________________________________

17
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Relate Cases and Transfer Second18
Filed Case to First-Filed Case (#96, filed Nov. 10, 2011) based on Local Rule 7.2-1. The Court
19
has also considered Defendants’ Opposition (#97, filed Nov. 28), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (#98, filed
20
Dec. 8).
21
Plaintiffs seek to relate and transfer Abraham, et al. v. Turnberry/MGM Grand
22
Towers, LLC, et al., 2:11-cv-01007-JCM-RJJ, (“Abraham”) currently pending before the
23
Honorable James C. Mahan to this Court and relate it to this case. Plaintiffs argue that the two
24
cases involve the same parties, are based on similar claims, involve the same property, involve
25
similar questions of fact and law, and that transfer and relation would likely create substantial
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

1

1

savings of judicial effort. See Local Rule 7-2.1. The Court finds that it has the discretion to relate

2

and transfer Abraham. Nonetheless, the Court will not do so. This is nothing more than an

3

attempt to delay proceedings begun nearly three years ago. This case has been sent to arbitration

4

in accord with the contracts Plaintiffs signed. (See Dkt. #59, Order Compelling Arbitration.)

5

Granting this motion would not create substantial savings of judicial effort. The Court will not

6

create further delays and judicial difficulties by relating these cases and transferring Abraham to

7

this Court.

8

CONCLUSION

9

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Relate and Transfer (#96) is

11
12

DENIED.
Dated: March 8, 2012.

13
14

____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)

2