Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01928/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01928-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Georgina Abrams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01928-PHX-FJM

ORDER

In this action, plaintiff alleges consumer fraud, abuse of process, anticipatory breach

of contract, perjury, and fraud against numerous defendants. The court has before it

plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams, CV-12-00314-PHX-NVW, to our docket

(doc. 77). In this motion, plaintiff also requests an extension of time to answer the fifteen

motions filed by defendants. The motion is not fully briefed.

In deciding whether to transfer a case under LRCiv 42.1, we consider whether matters

of substance have been considered in a case, whether a particular judge has the most

familiarity with the relevant issues, and whether a case can be reasonably viewed as the lead

case. Here, plaintiff argues that her recently filed action involves a common question of law

and fact as both actions are based upon her ex-husband's alleged refusal to follow orders in

previous court cases. She asks that we consolidate the cases to avoid unnecessary costs and

prevent duplication of evidence. Although plaintiff's ex-husband is a party in both actions,

the action before us has more than fifty additional defendants. These actions do not "involve

Case 2:11-cv-01928-FJM Document 90 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

substantially the same parties." LRCiv 42.1(a). There is also nothing so unique about these

actions that would make us any more equipped than any other judge in this district to

adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Additionally, there is a motion to remand pending in the action

plaintiff wishes us to transfer. In sum, there are not compelling reasons to transfer plaintiff's

recently-filed action.

 Plaintiff asks for a few more days to respond to all pending motions. The request

does not state the position of "each other party" as required by the local rules. LRCiv 7.3(b).

Moreover, plaintiff's time for responding to several of the pending motions has already

expired.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to transfer Abrams v. Abrams, CV12-00314-PHX-NVW (doc. 77).

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for an extension of time without

prejudice to plaintiff filing a new motion for extension of time that complies with LRCiv 7.3

(doc. 77). 

DATED this 16th day of March, 2012.

(cc: NVW)

Case 2:11-cv-01928-FJM Document 90 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2