Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00280/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones Act

---

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

10cv280

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICIO SOSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT PFEIFFER, et. al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv0280 JAH (BLM)

ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF

RELATED CASE

On June 11, 2010, the Court received a notice of related case filed in Pedro

Hernandez Robles and Jose Ruiz Tarango v. M/Y Nice Try, 10cv1195 H (BGS). In

support of this notice, plaintiffs contend the case “arise[s] out of substantially the same

set of underlying facts and involve some of the same parties” involved in the case before

this Court. 

Upon review of the complaints filed in the instant case and Hernandez, this Court

finds the two cases do not arise from the same or substantially similar set of underlying

facts. The case before this Court involves an accident on the high seas resulting in physical

injury including amputation of a portion of Plaintiff Sosa’s foot on September 9, 2008,

while he was performing his duties. Plaintiffs in 10cv1195 H (BGS) allege that on

September 15, 2008, while in port in Ensenada, Baja Mexico, Defendants refused to pay

wages, hired agents and employees to assault and batter Plaintiffs, threatened to kill

Plaintiff Hernandez Robles, wrongfully removed Plaintiffs from the vessel and defamed

Plaintiffs. Other causes of action asserted in Case No. 10cv1195 H (BGS) include false

Case 3:10-cv-00280-JAH-BLM Document 15 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 2
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 10cv280

promises/concealment fraud, intentional interference with a business advantage and

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

As is evident, the transactions, happenings and events have no relation. Anticipated

defenses will be substantially different, and damages sought will not be based upon the

same or substantially similar theories. Additionally, it is a stretch to presume that the

same or substantially similar questions of law predominate on the causes of action alleged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Court DECLINES to consent to the

transfer of Case No. 10cv1195 H (BGS) pursuant to the “low number” rule.

DATED: June 18, 2010

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00280-JAH-BLM Document 15 Filed 06/18/10 Page 2 of 2