Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05351/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05351-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SAN FRANCISCO VETERAN POLICE

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 13-05351 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO RELATE ACTIONS

Defendants move to relate this action to Leonard Fyock, et al., v. The City of 

Sunnyvale, et al., No. 5:13-cv-05807 RMW (Dkt No. 27). In this action, plaintiffs are

challenging a San Francisco city ordinance that bans the possession of ammunition magazines

capable of accepting more than ten rounds, while plaintiffs in Fyock are challenging a similar

ordinance promulgated by the city of Sunnyvale. Plaintiffs oppose. 

Under Civil Local Rule 3–12, actions are related if they “concern substantially the same

parties, property, transaction or event” and “[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.” Here, defendants have failed to show the first prong of Rule 3–12. The

actions involve different plaintiffs and different defendants. Moreover, neither action involves

the same property or transaction. To the extent that promulgating a city ordinance is an event,

each action addresses a different event. Each ordinance was enacted by a different city and each

Case 3:13-cv-05351-WHA Document 29 Filed 01/03/14 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

enactment was conducted in a different manner (Dkt. No 23 at 3). Sunnyvale adopted its ban by

way of ballot measure, whereas San Francisco adopted its ban through legislative enactment. 

Defendants argue that the ordinances in question are “essentially identical,” but later

concede that the Sunnyvale ordinance bans the possession and use of the magazines whereas the

San Francisco ordinance only bans the possession of the magazines (Dkt. No. 27 at 3). 

Defendants also argue that plaintiffs in both actions are represented by the same counsel and

assert “substantially identical” claims for relief. A plain reading of Rule 3–12, however, does

not support the argument that actions which assert “essentially similar” claims for relief are

related. Rather, defendants are burdened with proving that the actions “concern substantially the

same parties, property, transaction or event” and would involve burdensome duplication of labor. 

Thus, defendants’ motion to relate is DENIED. 

If Judge Ronald Whyte and all parties were to consent to transferring the Sunnyvale

action to the undersigned judge, the undersigned judge would be happy to receive it and

coordinate the briefing schedule. But in the meantime, the San Francisco action will proceed

apace. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-05351-WHA Document 29 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 2