• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,Defendants.NO. C00-4599 TEHORDER DENYING MOTION TORELATE CASESTIMOTHY SCOTT CAMPBELL,et al.,Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,Respondents.NO. C11-5498 RSThese matters come before this Court on the
Campbell
plaintiffs’ administrativemotion to determine whether
Campbell v. City of Oakland 
, Case No. C11-5498 RS, is relatedto
 Allen v. City of Oakland 
, Case No. 00-4599 TEH;
Coles v. City of Oakland 
, CaseNo. 03-2961 TEH;
 Local 10, International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. City of Oakland 
, Case No. 03-2962 TEH; and
Spalding v. City of Oakland 
, C11-2867 TEH. Aftercarefully considering both the moving papers and the timely opposition filed by the City of Oakland, the Court concludes that these cases are not related.Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) defines cases to be related if they “concern substantially thesame parties, property, transaction or event,” and “[i]t appears likely that there will be anunduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases areconducted before different Judges.” These cases do not satisfy either part of this definition.
Case3:11-cv-05498-RS Document39 Filed11/23/11 Page1 of 2
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...