Opinion
Case Nos. CIV-06-01072 WBS DAD, CIV-06-1392 FCD JFM.
August 9, 2006
ORDER
The court has received the Notice and Motion to Relate Cases concerning the above-captioned cases filed on August 7, 2006.See Local Rule 83-123. Specifically, counsel for defendants points out that both cases are brought by the same plaintiff and involve restaurants in the same shopping center. However, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in these actions bring hundreds of actions each year, and it is not uncommon for many of them to involve business establishments in the same shopping center. It would be impractical for the court to adjust its calendar to assure that cases involving a single shopping center be assigned to a single judge. Nor would it be practical to assign all cases involving a single plaintiff to a single judge. Indeed, the identity of the plaintiff is of little importance in this type of action. Of greater significance is the nature and degree of the alleged barriers. Although plaintiffs in these cases commonly complain about the same kinds of alleged barriers, the relevant inquiry is typically specific to the individual case.
The court has, accordingly, determined that it is inappropriate to relate or reassign the cases at this time, and therefore declines to do so. This order is issued for informational purposes only, and shall have no effect on the status of the cases, including any previous Related (or Non-Related) Case Order of this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.