Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00030/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00030-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHIP-TECH, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00030 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO RELATE CASES

Now pending is a motion to relate the above-entitled action to several other actions

pending in this district. Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) explains that actions are related when: (1) the

“actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event,” and (2) “[i]t

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.” 

While Case No. C 07-0030 WHA was pending before the undersigned, it was

immediately dismissed. No work was done on that case and the undersigned never knew it was

on the docket. It is true that a case can be related to another that “is or was pending in this

District.” Civ. Local R. 3-12(b). But in this instance, no work was done on the

lowest-numbered case and because of that it is not related. Relating these cases to the

undersigned would in no way avoid a duplication of labor and expense or lead to conflicting

results.

Case 3:07-cv-00030-WHA Document 16 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

True, the Court is concerned that counsel in the above-entitled action filed this suit and

quickly dismissed it and then, with a different plaintiff, filed an essentially identical lawsuit in

the Southern District of New York and then quickly dismissed that suit. The suggestion is made

that counsel is engaged in judge-shopping. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393,

398–400 (9th Cir. 1998). Even so, this would not be a basis on which to relate these cases. The

Court will address the problem of potential judge-shopping separately. The motion to relate

cases to the above-entitled action is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00030-WHA Document 16 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2