Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01755/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01755-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SADIE S. SHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01755-DMR (KAW)

ORDERING DENYING 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASES

Re: Dkt. No. 4

On April 23, 2015, pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(c), the Honorable Donna M. Ryu referred 

this action sua sponte to the undersigned to determine whether it was related to Shaw v. JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, N.A., 13-cv-03165-KAW.

Under Civil L.R. 3-12, an action is related when:

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, 

transaction or event; and

(2) It 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.

Civil L.R. 3-12(a). Plaintiff’s complaint provides that the prior action was stayed pending an 

agreement to enter into a loan modification, and that the case was ultimately dismissed because 

“no agreement was reached.” Compl. ¶¶ 4-5, Shaw v. JPMorgan Chase Bank., N.A., Case No. 15-

cv-01755-DMR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015), ECF No. 1. This representation, however, is 

inaccurate. Despite the allegations to the contrary, the proceedings in the prior action were never 

stayed nor did the parties enter into any formal stipulations, let alone one that would provide 

Plaintiff with a loan modification. In fact, Plaintiff failed to oppose JPMorgan Chase’s motion to 

dismiss, and did not respond to the undersigned’s order to show case. See Order Dismissing Case 

Without Prejudice, Shaw v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 13-cv-03165-KAW (N.D. Cal. 

Case 3:15-cv-01755-JD Document 6 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Feb. 4, 2014), ECF No. 22. As a result, the prior action was dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to prosecute. Id. at 2.

Accordingly, since the undersigned did not address the merits of Plaintiff’s allegations in 

the prior action, the adjudication of the instant action by Judge Ryu will not result in “an unduly 

burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results,” as required by Civil L.R. 3-

12(a)(2). Thus, the two cases are not related.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01755-JD Document 6 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 2