Opinion
2:17-cr-00210-TLN 2:21-cr-00223-JAM
11-29-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAGPAL SINGH, ET AL., Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASWINDER SINGH, Defendant.
RELATED CASE ORDER
Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge
The Court has reviewed the Government's Notice of Related Cases, filed November 17, 2021. (ECF No. 151.) Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Under Local Rule 123, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on a same or similar claim; 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).
In United States v. Jagpal Singh, et al., 2:17-cr-210-TLN, several Defendants were charged with conspiring to commit bribery, identity fraud and unauthorized access of a computer in Count Thirty-One of the Indictment. As alleged in the Indictment, Defendants named in that Count worked together to help individuals fraudulently procure their California commercial driver licenses in exchange for bribe payments. One such Defendant set her case for jury trial on October 4, 2021. Before that date, however, the named Defendant in United States v. Jaswinder Singh, 2:21-cr-223-JAM, contacted one of the other Defendants charged in Count Thirty-One to try and influence, obstruct, and impede that Defendant's involvement and testimony in the scheduled October trial. For example, Defendant in United States v. Jaswinder Singh instructed Defendant named in United States v. Jagpal Singh, et al., who he met with, not to name him as an uncharged co-conspirator, not to talk on the phone, and instead, to claim minimal to no involvement in the charged conspiracy.
Based on the foregoing, the two cases should be related under Local Rule 123 because the cases involve similar claims and overlapping transactions and events. In addition, both cases are likely to involve similar questions of fact and law. Accordingly, the Court finds there is sufficient overlap in both cases to merit relating them, and assignment to the same Judge will save judicial resources and effort.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated No. 2:21-cr-00223-JAM be reassigned to District Judge Troy L. Nunley, and the caption shall read No. 2:21-cr-00223-TLN Any dates currently set in No. 2:21-cr-00223-JAM are hereby VACATED.