Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01113/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James L Gagan, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

The Estate of Victor E Sharar, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-99-01427-PHX-RCB

No. CV-13-1113-PHX-SRB 

 O R D E R 

 

 Currently pending before the court is defendant James Monroe’s motion to 

transfer Gagan v. Monroe, No. CV-13-1113-PHX-SRB (“Gagan II”), which was 

randomly assigned to the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Court Judge, 

1

to this court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)(1)2 and LRCiv 42.1(a). As part of this 

 

1 Defendant Monroe did not comply with the procedure for filing a motion to transfer pursuant 

to LRCiv 42.1(b). “A motion to transfer pursuant to subparagraph (a)” of LRCiv 42.1 “must be filed in 

the case with the lowest case number that is assigned to a District Judge, who will hear and decide the 

motion.” LRCiv 42.1(b) (emphasis added). Defendant Monroe filed this motion to transfer in Gagan II, 

the case with the highest case number, however. Defendant Monroe also did not file “[a] notice of filing 

the motion, with an attached copy of the motion” in this case, as LRCiv 42.1(b) also requires. See 

LRCiv 42.1(b) (emphasis added) (“A notice of filing the motion, with an attached copy of the motion, 

must be filed in each case to be considered for transfer . . . , except for the case in which the motion is 

filed.”) Despite these procedural deficiencies, this court will resolve defendant’s motion to transfer, 

improperly filed in Gagan II. 

2

 As this court has previously observed in this very case, “[t]he applicability of this 

particular Rule is questionable here given that it speaks strictly of ‘consolidation.’” Gagan v. Estate of 

Sharar, 2008 WL 2810978, at *2 n. 4 (July 18, 2008). “Arguably the transfer which Mr. [Monroe] is 

seeking comes within the ambit of subsection three, however, which allows a court to ‘issue any other 

orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.’” Id. (quoting See Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)(1)(3)). 

Case 2:13-cv-01113-DJH Document 33 Filed 12/09/13 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 

motion, the defendant also requests a “suspen[sion] [of] all deadlines, including the 

Answer deadline[];” and a stay of all discovery until the resolution of his motion to 

dismiss in the present action, Gagan v. Sharar, No. CV-99-01427-PHX-RCB (“Gagan 

I”). For the reasons set forth below, the court hereby GRANTS defendant Monroe’s 

motion in its entirety. 

Background 

 For approximately 18 years, this court has presided over Gagan I, wherein plaintiff 

Gagan has been seeking to enforce an Indiana judgment for roughly $1.7 million against 

defendant James Monroe, among others. The court assumes familiarity with Gagan I. 

On May 31, 2013, plaintiff James L. Gagan commenced an action against defendant 

Monroe and others, some of whom are also participants in Gagan I in one capacity or 

another. In the recently filed Gagan II action, the plaintiff alleges five separate counts of 

fraudulent transfers, and a conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers. The Gagan II 

complaint also broadly alleges that the foregoing is part of a larger attempt by defendant 

Monroe to conceal his assets and hinder the plaintiff’s collection activities in Gagan I. 

Thus, as defendant Monroe accurately describes the Gagan II complaint, it “arises from 

the same judgment” as Gagan I and “seeks to introduce additional defendants for 

purposes of continued collection efforts.” Mot. (Doc. 20) at 2:16-17. 

Discussion

 LRCiv 42.1(a) states in part: 

 Whenever two or more cases are pending before different Judges 

 and any party believes that such cases (A) arise from substantially 

 the same transaction or event; (B) involve substantially the same parties or 

 property; . . . (D) call for determination of substantially the same question 

 of law; or (E) for any other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor 

 if heard by different Judges, any party may file a motion to transfer the case or 

 cases involved to a single Judge. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01113-DJH Document 33 Filed 12/09/13 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 

LRCiv. 42.1(a)(1) (emphasis added). Relying upon the highlighted language, defendant 

Monroe is seeking to have Gagan II transferred to the undersigned. The defendant 

points, inter alia, to the similarity of subject matter, and the “substantial duplication of 

effort” which would result if Gagan II is not transferred to the undersigned. Mot. (Doc. 

20) at 3:12-13. Nearly all of the defendants in Gagan II are expressly joining in 

defendant Monroe’s motion to transfer (Docs. 25 and 27). 

 Acknowledging the undersigned’s involvement in this case for many years, 

plaintiff Gagan does not oppose transfer of Gagan II. Notice of Non-Opposition (Doc. 

28). The plaintiff makes no mention, however, of the other aspects of the defendant’s 

motion, i.e., the request to suspend all deadlines and preclude all discovery, “until such 

time as the Motion to Dismiss [in Gagan I] is fully litigated.” See Mot. (Doc. 20) at 1:23-

24. 

 In light of the foregoing, and given this court’s extensive involvement and 

intimate familiarity with the subject of these two actions, it finds that in the interests of 

judicial economy, Gagan II should be transferred to the undersigned. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 “Defendant James Monroe’s Rule 42 Motion to Transfer; Motion to Suspend 

Deadlines and Motion for a Protective Order” (Doc. 20 in No. CV-13-1113-PHX-SRB) 

is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

 the Clerk of the Court shall transfer No. CV-13-1113 to this Court; and all future 

filings relating thereto shall reflect the new case number of CV-13-1113-PHX-RCB; and 

the Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this order in CV-99-01427-PHX-RCB. 

 DATED this 6th day of December, 2013. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01113-DJH Document 33 Filed 12/09/13 Page 3 of 3