Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08221/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08221-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laura Burnside, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian

Relocation,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-08233-PCT-PGR

Related Cases: 

CV-16-08188-PCT-SPL

CV-16-08196-PCT-DLR

CV-16-08221-PCT-DGC

CV-16-08229-PCT-JAT

CV-16-08245-PCT-JWS

CV-16-08268-PCT-DMF

 

 ORDER 

 

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Transfer (Doc. 26) filed by

defendant Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR), wherein it seeks

to transfer six other ONHIR-related cases to the undersigned Judge pursuant to

LRCiv 42.1. The plaintiffs in all seven cases have opposed the requested transfer.

The Court, in the exercise of its “broad discretion” in determining whether the

reassignment of the affected cases is appropriate under LRCiv 42.1, see Badea v.

Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1414

(9th Cir.1989), finds that the motion should be denied.

First, the Court is not persuaded that the cases involve substantially the same

Case 3:16-cv-08221-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/01/17 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

- 2 -

parties or call for the determination of substantially the same questions of law. While

all of the cases arise from the plaintiffs’ desires to obtain relocation assistance

benefits under the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act and the ONHIR is the sole

defendant in all of them, the similarity of the cases, in a legally material sense, ends

there. The plaintiffs are different in all of the cases, the specific legal issues they

raise are not substantially the same, and the factual circumstances underlying their

cases are unique to them. While there is some commonality of counsel representing

the various parties, that mere commonality is an insufficient basis on which to justify

the transfer that ONHIR seeks given the legal and factual distinctions among the

cases.

Second, the Court is also not persuaded that there would be any substantial

duplication of judicial labor if the requested transfer is denied. Each case involves

an administrative record that must be judicially reviewed and each such record is

distinct from the others. Furthermore, no showing has been made that the resolution

of these significantly dissimilar cases by the different judges assigned to them will

likely result in inconsistent rulings materially prejudicial to any of the parties involved

in them. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 26) is denied.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.

Case 3:16-cv-08221-DGC Document 32 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 2