Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02221/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02221-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREW FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TW TELECOM HOLDINGS INC., 

Defendant. 

ANDREW FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TW TELECOM HOLDINGS, INC.; 

and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02221-GEB-CKD 

RELATED CASE ORDER 

No. 2:15-cv-01976-JAM-CKD 

Defendant filed a “Notice of Related Cases” in which it 

states: 

The[ above-entitled] actions are related 

because they were filed by the same plaintiff 

against the same defendant, and both actions 

involve similar claims. 

 In the Prior Action, Plaintiff claimed 

that Defendant (his employer) retaliated 

against him for making safety complaints, 

ultimately terminating his employment in a 

reduction in force (“RIF”) and failing to 

consider him for re-hire after the RIF. In 

the Current Action, Plaintiff again claims 

that he is a “wrongfully-terminated employee” 

of Defendant who made safety complaints, was 

Case 2:13-cv-02221-GEB-CKD Document 34 Filed 09/22/15 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 

retaliated against and ultimately terminated 

for making those safety complaints, and was 

not considered for re-hire following the RIF. 

He also claims in the Current Action that 

Defendant interfered with his efforts to 

obtain new employment. 

 Indeed, Plaintiff copies verbatim (or 

nearly verbatim) several paragraphs in the 

complaint in the Current Action from the 

complaint in the Prior Action, including 

paragraphs 1-8, 12 and 17-18. Other 

paragraphs in the complaint in the Current 

Action, such as paragraphs 9-11 and 13, 

summarize multiple paragraphs from the 

complaint in the Prior Action. Plaintiff even 

re-alleges issues that were actually 

adjudicated in Defendant’s favor in the Prior 

Action, including his claim that Defendant 

retaliated against him by taking his “master 

key,” removing him from a bonus program, and 

failing to re-hire him after the RIF. The 

only new allegation in the Current Action is 

that Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s 

efforts to obtain employment with another 

company. The claims in the Current Action 

that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff 

by interfering with his efforts to obtain new 

employment are similar to the claims in the 

Prior Action, making the two cases related 

under the meaning of Local Rule 123. 

 The Honorable Judge Garland E. Burrell, 

Jr., presided over and became immersed in the 

claims, allegations, and evidence in the 

Prior Action. Judge Burrell reviewed and 

issued orders on several motions, including 

Defendant[’s] motion to dismiss (Prior 

Action ECF 10), Plaintiff's motion to amend 

the complaint (Prior Action ECF 30), and 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

(Prior Action ECF 31). The Prior Action was 

terminated only recently, on May 26, 2015. 

Given Judge Burrell’s knowledge and 

understanding of the parties and issues, it 

would entail substantial duplication of labor 

if the Current Action were to be heard by a 

different Judge than the Prior Action. 

Defendant respectfully submits that the 

Current Action should be assigned to Judge 

Burrell, and that such assignment will effect 

a savings of judicial effort and economy. 

(Notice of Related Cases, ECF No. 33 (citations omitted).) 

Case 2:13-cv-02221-GEB-CKD Document 34 Filed 09/22/15 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 

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that 

they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the 

regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally 

assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first 

filed action was assigned. Therefore, action 2:15-cv-01976-JAMCKD is reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. for all 

further proceedings, and any date currently set in the reassigned 

case is VACATED. Henceforth the caption on documents filed in the 

reassigned case shall show the initials “GEB-CKD.” 

The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate 

adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for 

this reassignment and shall issue an Order Setting Status 

(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in action 2:15-cv-01976. 

Dated: September 22, 2015 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02221-GEB-CKD Document 34 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 3