Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03192/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03192-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re: Connectix Corporation

 /

NO. C 06-03163 JW 

NO. C 07-03192 RMW

ORDER RELATING CASES

Presently before the Court is a referral from the Judge Ronald M. Whyte to consider whether

this case and In re: Connectix Corporation, No. C 07-03192 RMW, should be related pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 3-12 (c). (Docket Item No. 17.) Each case is an appeal by EOP-Peninsula Office

Park, LLC, (“Appellant”) from the same underlying bankruptcy case wherein Connectix Corporation

(“Appellee”) is the debtor.

Rule 3-12 (a) defines related actions as:

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and 

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and

expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.

Here, both of the actions at issue are appeals from the same bankruptcy case. While each appeal

concerns a different issue, each issue arises out of the same common nucleus of facts concerning the

circumstances of the bankruptcy. Moreover, one of the appeals concerns the bankruptcy court’s

decision not to dismiss the underlying bankruptcy case. Thus, conflicting results and duplication of

labor could result if, for example, this Court grants dismissal as Judge Whyte considers the other

appeal.

Case 5:07-cv-03192-JW Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 (See Docket Item No. 13.)

2

 (See Docket Item No. 14, 16.)

2

Accordingly, the Court finds the two actions are related within the meaning of Rule 3-12 and

orders the cases related. The Clerk shall reassign C 07-3192 RMW to this Court. All further filings

in both cases should have the initials JW following the case number. 

In response to Judge Whyte’s Rule 3-12 (c) referral, Appellant requested that the Court

consolidate these cases,1

 and Appellee moved for the Court to dismiss one of Appellant’s appeals.2

The Court defers consideration of Appellee’s motion to dismiss until such time as it has been fully

briefed. The parties shall comply with the briefing schedule as set forth in Rule 8011-1(a). 

Dated: January 11, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03192-JW Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Amy Matthew am@msrlegal.com

James Allan Tiemstra jat@tiemlaw.com

Jess Borden Millikan jess.millikan@bullivant.com

Linda Louise Sorensen lsorensen@stromsheim.com

Michael S. Greger mgreger@allenmatkins.com

Reidun Stromsheim rstromsheim@stromsheim.com

Dated: January 11, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:07-cv-03192-JW Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3