Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01636-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Stacey Victoria Hartnett,

Plaintiff,

v.

County of Placer, a public 

entity; et al.,

Defendants.

Stacey Victoria Hartnett,

Plaintiff,

v.

County of Placer, a public 

entity; et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01636-GEB-KJN

RELATED CASE ORDER

No. 2:14-cv-01604-KJM-CKD

Defendants Placer County, Placer County Health and 

Human Services (CSOC), Richard J. Burton, Kevin Henderson, Diana 

Ryan, H. Paul Sanders, April Carew, Kathy Tanner, Karen 

Schlanger, Candyce Skinner, Tom Lind and Romney Lynn filed a 

“Notice of Related Cases” in which they state:

[The above-captioned] cases involve the 

same parties, the same claims, and the same 

transactions and events. One of the cases 

originated in state court and has been 

Case 2:13-cv-01636-GEB-KJN Document 29 Filed 07/14/14 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

removed. Aside from the caption page and the 

second paragraph concerning jurisdiction, 

both complaints appear to be identical.

The similarities of the parties, claims, 

and underlying allegations weigh in favor of 

reassignment because it would further 

judicial efficiency. L.R. 123(a)(3)-(4). 

These . . . Defendants may file a motion to 

dismiss in both cases on September 12, 2014, 

and a stipulation and proposed order has been 

presented to the Court regarding the 

extension of time to respond. Having one 

Judge instead of two preside over this set of 

motions would be vastly more efficient 

because it [w]ould eliminate the need for one 

Judge to rule on a motion and given the 

identical nature of the cases, judicial 

resources would be conserved. Additional 

judicial resources would be conserved should 

the cases continue after the motions to 

dismiss hearings are heard.

(Notice of Related Cases 1:14-2:3, ECF No. 27.) 

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, case No. 2:14-cv-01604 is 

reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., and Magistrate Judge 

Kendall J. Newman 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-KJN.” 

Further, a Status Conference is scheduled in case No. 

2:14-cv-01604 before the undersigned judge on August 18, 2014 at 

9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior.1

 

1 The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the 

Case 2:13-cv-01636-GEB-KJN Document 29 Filed 07/14/14 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

The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate 

adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for 

this reassignment.

Dated: July 11, 2014

 

preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from 

their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order. 

In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely 

submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was 

unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties.

Case 2:13-cv-01636-GEB-KJN Document 29 Filed 07/14/14 Page 3 of 3