Opinion
2:23-CR-0236-DJC 22-CR-0118-TLN
09-19-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS MOORE, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENDRA DENNAOUI, Defendant.
PHILLIP A. TALBERT, United States Attorney, VERONICA M.A. ALEGRIA, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
PHILLIP A. TALBERT, United States Attorney, VERONICA M.A. ALEGRIA, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
ORDER RELATING CASES
Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, The United States of America, through its undersigned counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Veronica M.A. Alegria, hereby gives notice that the above-captioned matters are related cases within the meaning of Local Rule 123. These cases involve the same parties and/or witnesses, are based on the same or similar facts, and involve the same transactions, and reassignment to the same district judge would avoid substantial duplication of labor by the Court.
In United States v. Moore, Case No. 22-CR-0118-TLN, the defendant, Dennis Moore, was charged via an Information with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. As alleged in the Information, Moore and his “Spouse” were involved in a scheme to defraud at least 7 victims whom they falsely induced to wire money into Moore and Spouse's bank accounts based on false representations. Among other things, Moore and Spouse falsely represented that Moore purchased homes to renovate and resell for a profit, victims' investments would be used for these real estate projects, victims would receive a 25% profit at the end of a fixed period of time, and that Moore and Spouse had sufficient equity in their property to cover the loans. Specifically, the information alleges that, based on Moore and Spouse's fraudulent and false statements, on November 10, 2017, Victim 1 initiated a wire transfer through interstate wires of $100,000 from Victim 1's Ally Bank account into Wells Fargo account ending in 0842 that is maintained by Spouse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
In the case of United States v. Dennaoui, Case No. 2:23-CR-0236-DJC, the Information makes clear that the unnamed “Spouse” in defendant Moore's case is defendant Kendra Dennaoui. Dennaoui is charged in the information with the same crime as defendant Moore: wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, for the same fraudulent investment scheme, with the same alleged manner and means, the same 7 victims, and the same specific $100,000 wire transfer on November 10, 2017.
Pursuant to Local Rule 123, the cases involve the same parties, the same transactions, the same evidence, and the same witnesses. Further, reassignment of the cases to the same district judge is “likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort” because it will necessarily avoid the “substantial duplication of labor” by the judiciary of this district, including any issues regarding discovery or admissibility of evidence and any questions of law or facts that may arise thereto. See EDCA L.R. 123(a)(3)-(4).
For the foregoing reasons, the United States believes that the above-captioned cases are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Consequently, the United States respectfully requests that the above captioned cases be reassigned to the Honorable Troy L. Nunley in accordance with the provisions of the Local Rules of this district.
ORDER RELATING CASES
For the reasons set forth in the Notice of Related Cases filed by counsel for the United States, the Court finds that the civil case captioned United States v. Dennis Moore, Case No. 22-CR-0118-TLN (E.D. Cal.), is related to the criminal case captioned United States v. Kendra Dennaoui, Case No. 2:23-CR-0236-DJC (E.D. Cal.), within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Based on this finding, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall assign United States v. Kendra Dennaoui, Case No. 2:23-CR-0236-DJC (E.D. Cal.) to the Honorable Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge; and
2. If necessary, the Clerk of the Court shall make an appropriate adjustment in the assignment of cases to compensate for this reassignment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.