Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00026-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY R. ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al.

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:23-cv-00026-JLT-SKO

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS FILE A 

NOTICE OF RELATED CASES OR 

SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASES

SHOULD NOT BE RELATED

5 DAY DEADLINE

Examination of the above-titled action indicates that it may be related under this Court’s 

Local Rule 123(a) to the following action pending before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston and 

Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker: Beverly Allen v. Protective Life Insurance Company, et al., 

Case No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT-CDB. The actions have a common plaintiff (Beverly Allen), a 

common defendant (Protective Life Insurance Company), and are based on the same or similar 

claims, the same transactions or events, similar questions of fact, and the same question of law. See

E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a). Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to the same judge is likely to 

effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the parties.1

1 Relation of actions under Local Rule 123 merely assigns them to the same district judge and magistrate judge—it 

does not consolidate the cases.

Case 1:23-cv-00026-JLT-CDB Document 28 Filed 09/07/23 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

Subsection (b) of Local Rule 123, titled “Duties of Counsel,” provides that “[c]ounsel who 

has reason to believe that an action on file or about to be filed may be related to another action on 

file (whether or not dismissed or otherwise terminated) shall promptly file in each action and serve 

on all parties in each action a Notice of Related Cases.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(b) (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff Allen did not file a “Notice of Related Cases” in either action, despite being represented by 

the same counsel in both cases.2

Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any, why this action should not be related 

to Beverly Allen v. Protective Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT-CDB. 

Alternatively, Plaintiffs shall file a “Notice of Related Cases” as required by Local Rule 123(b).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than 5 days of service of this Order, Plaintiffs shall either:

a. file a written response to this Order showing cause why this action should not 

be related to Beverly Allen v. Protective Life Insurance Company, et al., Case 

No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT-CDB; or

b. file a “Notice of Related Cases” in both actions.

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on any and 

all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause non-compliance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 Nor did Defendant Protective Life Insurance Company, who also is represented by the same counsel in both actions.

Case 1:23-cv-00026-JLT-CDB Document 28 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 2