IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 7, 2012
AMANDA WENTZ, INDIVIDUALLY,
TACO BELL CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
On May 15, 2012, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Cases in this action, in which it states this action "is related to In re Taco Bell, Eastern District Case No. 1:07-CV-1314 LJO DLB . . . under Local Rule 123(b)." (ECF No. 9, 1:26-2:17.) However, a review of the docket in In re Taco Bell reveals Defendant failed to file a Notice of Related Cases in that action as required by the Local Rules. E.D. Cal. R. 123(b) ("Counsel who has reason to believe that an action on file or about to be filed may be related to another action on file . . . shall promptly file in each action and serve on all parties in each action a Notice of Related Cases). Local Rule 123(b) prescribes "the Judge to whom the [earlier filed action] has been assigned . . . is authorized to enter an order reassigning all [later filed] related actions to himself[.]"
Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Consolidate, and alternative Motion to Stay, seeking, inter alia, an order "consolidat[ing] [this action] with the filed-first In re Taco Bell matter[.]" (Mot. to Consolidate 2:4-7.) Defendant noticed said motion for hearing before the undersigned judge on July 16, 2012.
The hearing on Defendant's consolidation motion is vacated since Defendant has not complied with Local Rule 123(b) or shown that the undersigned judge has authority to relate and consolidate the earlier filed action. See Solannex, Inc. v. Miasole, Inc., No. 11-CV-00171-PSG, 2012 WL 1894268, at *1 n.12 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2012)(indicating motions to consolidate, like "issues of relation" are "properly presented" to the "judge with the [earlier-filed] case").
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.