IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 6, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES; ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, PLAINTIFF,
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO., DEFENDANT. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO., PLAINTIFF,
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEFENDANT.
RELATED CASE ORDER
Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are not related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Here, although the actions numbered 11-0346 and 12-1489 stem from the same event as the action numbered 09-2445, the three actions are not based on a similar claim, nor do they involve similar questions of fact or law such that "their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort." Local Rule 123(a)(1)-(3). Moreover, 11-0346 and 12-1489 would not "entail substantial duplication of labor" if these actions are heard by different judges from 09-2445. Accordingly, the assignment of these matters to the same judge will not effect a substantial savings of judicial effort or be convenient for the parties.
As a result, these three cases shall not be related. The undersigned expresses no opinion regarding the relation of 11-0346 and 12-1489 to each other.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.