From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dempsey v. Raley's

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 31, 2022
2:22-cv-01506-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01506-TLN-KJN 2:22-cv-01507-DAD-DB

10-31-2022

JOYCE DEMPSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RALEY'S, a California corporation, Defendant. JOYCE DEMPSEY, Plaintiff, v. RALEY'S, a California corporation, Defendant.


RELATED CASE ORDER

Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge

Defendant filed a Notice of Related Cases on October 24, 2022. Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claim(s); when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when they “involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge . . . is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort.” L.R. 123(a). Further,

[i]f the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning all higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.

L.R. 123(c).

The instant actions are related because they involve substantially similar parties and wage and hour claims. Plaintiff's claims arise from her employment with Defendant and involve similar questions of fact and law about Defendant's employment practices. Consequently, assignment to the same judge would “effect a substantial savings of judicial effort.” L.R. 123(a), see also L.R. 123(c).

Relating the cases under Local Rule 123, however, merely has the result that both actions are assigned to the same judge, it does not consolidate the actions. Under the regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. Should either party wish to consolidate the actions, the appropriate motion or stipulation must be filed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:22-cv-01507-DAD-DB is reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, and the caption shall read 2:22-cv-01507-TLN-KJN. Any dates currently set in 2:22-cv-01507-DAD-DB are hereby VACATED. The Clerk of the Court is to issue the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dempsey v. Raley's

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 31, 2022
2:22-cv-01506-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2022)
Case details for

Dempsey v. Raley's

Case Details

Full title:JOYCE DEMPSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RALEY'S, a California corporation…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 31, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-01506-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2022)