Free Order on Motion to Relate Case - District Court of California - California

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA

Document 210

Filed 03/06/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

STORRER, Plaintiff, v. PAUL REVERE LIFE INS, Defendant. /

No. C97-04014 MJJ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSIDER CASES AS RELATED AND TO REASSIGN CASE TO HONORABLE JAMES LARSON

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Before the Court is Plaintiff P. Paul Storrer's Motion To Consider Case As Related Case And To Reassign Case To The Honorable James Larson. (Docket No. 203.) Defendant The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company opposes the Motion. Plaintiff seeks to have this matter related to Case No. C99-5286JL, a later-filed matter that has been entirely resolved and closed, with judgment having been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See Hangarter v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, 373 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff also seeks to have this case reassigned to Magistrate Judge James Larson, who presided over that case when it was before the district court. The Court finds that Plaintiff's request to relate the two cases does not satisfy the relevant standard. Irrespective of the amount of factual or legal overlap between the two cases ­ which is disputed by the parties ­ Plaintiff has not established that it is "likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expenses or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges." Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(2). The fact that the Hangarter case has been entirely

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA

Document 210

Filed 03/06/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

resolved cuts against any such finding, because there remains little risk that conflicting decisions might simultaneously issue out of two different cases due to a lack of coordination between judges overseeing live matters. To the extent any rulings in the Hangarter case should, as Plaintiff contends, either bind Defendant or constitute controlling precedent, such rulings are now a matter of settled public record and the effect of such rulings on this matter can be fully vetted without relating the cases. The Court also finds that Plaintiff's request that this matter be reassigned to a particular judge, Magistrate Judge Larson, should be rejected because of the attendant risks of judge-shopping. Such a transfer order would likely be futile anyway given Defendant's representation, in its opposition, that it would not consent to having Magistrate Judge Larson hear this matter were it reassigned to him. On this record, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant has somehow waived its right to object to Judge Larson merely because of a purported failure by Defendant to notify the Northern District, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, that the two cases might be related. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 MARTIN J. JENKINS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2