Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_97-cv-04014/USCOURTS-cand-4_97-cv-04014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORRER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 PAUL REVERE LIFE INS,

Defendant. /

No. C97-04014 MJJ

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSIDER CASES AS RELATED AND

TO REASSIGN CASE TO HONORABLE

JAMES LARSON

Before the Court is Plaintiff P. Paul Storrer’s Motion To Consider Case As Related Case And

To Reassign Case To The Honorable James Larson. (Docket No. 203.) Defendant The Paul Revere

Life Insurance Company opposes the Motion. 

Plaintiff seeks to have this matter related to Case No. C99-5286JL, a later-filed matter that

has been entirely resolved and closed, with judgment having been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See

Hangarter v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, 373 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff also

seeks to have this case reassigned to Magistrate Judge James Larson, who presided over that case

when it was before the district court.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request to relate the two cases does not satisfy the relevant

standard. Irrespective of the amount of factual or legal overlap between the two cases – which is

disputed by the parties – Plaintiff has not established that it is “likely that there will be an unduly

burdensome duplication of labor and expenses or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before

different Judges.” Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)(2). The fact that the Hangarter case has been entirely

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA Document 210 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

resolved cuts against any such finding, because there remains little risk that conflicting decisions

might simultaneously issue out of two different cases due to a lack of coordination between judges

overseeing live matters. To the extent any rulings in the Hangarter case should, as Plaintiff

contends, either bind Defendant or constitute controlling precedent, such rulings are now a matter of

settled public record and the effect of such rulings on this matter can be fully vetted without relating

the cases. 

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s request that this matter be reassigned to a particular

judge, Magistrate Judge Larson, should be rejected because of the attendant risks of judge-shopping. 

 Such a transfer order would likely be futile anyway given Defendant’s representation, in its

opposition, that it would not consent to having Magistrate Judge Larson hear this matter were it

reassigned to him. On this record, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant has somehow

waived its right to object to Judge Larson merely because of a purported failure by Defendant to

notify the Northern District, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, that the two cases might be

related.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA Document 210 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2