Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01714/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01714-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

----oo0oo----

DAVID NOEL,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-07-00728 WBS KJM

vs.

CITY OF OROVILLE, LIZ 

EHRENSTROM, SHARON 

ATTEBERRY, ERIC TEITELMAN RELATED CASE ORDER

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1,000,

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

CHRISTINE LASIK,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-07-01714 MCE KJM

vs.

CITY OF OROVILLE, PAT GRIFFINCLARK, LIZ EHRENSTROM, SHARON

ATTEBERRY, ERIC TEITELMAN, AND

DOES 1 THROUGH 1,000, INCLUSIVE, 

Defendants.

_________________________________/

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS.

_________________________________/

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that

these actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule

Case 2:07-cv-01714-WBS -KJM Document 9 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

123(a) (E.D. Cal. 1984). All of the parties to Noel v. City of

Oroville, Civ. No. S-07-00728 WBS KJM, are also parties in Lasik

v. City of Oroville, Civ. No. S-07-1714 MCE KJM, and both cases

involve substantially identical legal and factual claims by the

plaintiffs (i.e., disability discrimination and failure to

accommodate) and by the City (i.e., that neither employee is

covered by the statutes and neither employee is entitled to the

accommodations they demand). Accordingly, the assignment of the

matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial

saving of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient

for the parties.

The parties should be aware that relating the cases

under Local Rule 123 merely has the result that both actions are

assigned to the same judge; no consolidation of the actions is

effected. Under the regular practice of this court, related

cases are generally assigned to the judge and magistrate to whom

the first filed action was assigned.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions denominated

Lasik v. City of Oroville, Civ. No. S-07-01714 MCE KJM and Noel

v. City of Oroville, Civ. No. S-07-00728 WBS KJM, and related

cross-claims should be, and the same hereby are, deemed related

and the case denominated Lasik v. City of Oroville, Civ. No. 

S-07-01714 MCE KJM shall be reassigned to the Honorable WILLIAM

B. SHUBB and Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller for all

further proceedings. Any dates currently set in the reassigned

case only are hereby VACATED. Henceforth, the caption on

documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as Lasik

v. City of Oroville, Civ. No. S-07-01714 WBS KJM. 

Case 2:07-cv-01714-WBS -KJM Document 9 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court

make appropriated adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to

compensate for this reassignment.

DATED: October 10, 2007

 

Case 2:07-cv-01714-WBS -KJM Document 9 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3