Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02851/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02851-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: Environmental Matters

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVE DRILLING ENVIRONMENTAL

ENGINEERING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARGARET THERSIA GAMBLIN ET

AL.,

Defendants. /

No. CV 14-2851 CRB

ORDER OF SUA SPONTE

REFERRAL AS TO WHETHER

CASES ARE RELATED

Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-12(c) provides: “Whenever a Judge

believes that a case pending before that Judge is related to another case, the Judge may refer

the case to the Judge assigned to the earliest-filed case with a request that the Judge assigned

to the earliest-filed case consider whether the cases are related.” 

In the course of reviewing Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene

(dkt. 38) in Case No. 14-2851 CRB, it came to the Court’s attention that this action might be

related to an earlier-filed case, initially captioned Dave Drilling Environmental Engineering,

Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and subsequently amended to Omo

Fagbohungbe, an individual doing business as Dave Drilling Environmental Engineering, Inc

v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Case No. 13-3801 WHO. The earlier case was

brought by the same Plaintiff as in this case, against the same Defendant, Margaret Gamblin, 

Case 3:14-cv-02851-WHO Document 43 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 The earlier case describes the property where defendants operated “Kitty Cleaners,” a dry

cleaning company, as 904 Newbridge Street, see Compl. ¶¶ 1-2 in Case No. 13-3801 WHO; FAC ¶¶ 1-2

in Case No. 13-3801 WHO, while the current case alleges that defendants operated Kitty Cleaners at

910 Newbridge Street, Compl. ¶ 5 in Case No. 14-2851 CRB. The parties do not explain the

discrepancy but neither do they suggest that different properties are at issue in the two cases. 

2

 Plaintiff asserts that “[d]ue to the fact that [the earlier case] was closed, Plaintiff’s attorney did

not believe that [the earlier case] had any relation to the present action for purpose of Civil Local Rule

3-12.” Opp’n to Mot. (dkt. 41) at 6 in Case No. 14-2851 CRB. Of course, that Rule requires the filing

of an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related “[w]henever a party knows

or learns that an action . . . is (or the party believes that the action may be) related to an action which

is or was pending in this District. . . .” Civ. L. R. 3-12(b) (emphasis added). The Court also notes that

Plaintiff actually relies on arguments Fireman’s Fund made in the earlier case in opposing intervention

in this case. See Opp’n to Mot. at 11 in Case No. 14-2851 CRB (“[I]n case no. 3:13-CV-03801 WHO,

FFIC claimed that it could not be sued under any of the causes of action listed in the Complaint”).

2

as well as Fireman’s Fund and other defendants. See generally Compl. (dkt. 1) in Case No.

13-3801 WHO; FAC (dkt. 9) in Case No. 13-3801 WHO; Compl. (dkt. 1) in Case No. 14-

2851. The earlier case involved the same causes of action as the present action: violation of

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, continuing

nuisance, continuing trespass, waste, and declaratory relief. See id. It also involved the

same issue: soil contamination and subsequent remediation at a property located on

Newbridge Street in East Palo Alto, California. See Compl. ¶ 1 in Case No. 13-3801 WHO;

FAC ¶ 1 in Case No. 13-3801 WHO; Compl. ¶ 10 in Case No. 14-2851.1

 Judge Orrick wrote

a ten page order in the earlier case, ruling on, among other things, Fireman’s Fund’s motion

to dismiss, and service issues related to Gamblin. See generally Order on MTD (dkt. 49) in

Case No. 13-3801 WHO. The earlier case ended in May 2014, when Plaintiff voluntary

dismissed. See Order Dismissing Case (dkt. 61) in Case No. 13-3801 WHO. Less than a

month later, Plaintiff brought this case, against Gamblin only, asserting that it intended “to

collect any damages relating to this action from Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company in its

capacity as Defendant’s insurer.” See Compl. ¶ 13 in Case No. 14-2851 CRB. Plaintiff

apparently failed to notify Fireman’s Fund of the new case, see Mot. at 4 in Case No. 14-

2851 CRB; Adams Decl. (dkt. 38-1) ¶ 3 in Case No. 14-2851 CRB, and—more

significantly, as far as the Court is concerned—failed to file a Notice of Related Case.2

 This

Court was thus unaware until now that the earlier case existed. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 3-12(c), the Court REFERS this action to the

Case 3:14-cv-02851-WHO Document 43 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Honorable William H. Orrick for a determination of whether this action is related to Omo

Fagbohungbe, an individual doing business as Dave Drilling Environmental Engineering, Inc

v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Case No. 13-3801 WHO.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-02851-WHO Document 43 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 3