Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cr-00177/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cr-00177-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bradley Earl Reger
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRADLEY EARL REGER, 

Defendant.

No. 2:23-CR-00177-TLN

RELATED CASE ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 700 

ASH STREET, SUSANVILLE, 

CALIFORNIA, LASSEN COUNTY, 

APN: 105-030-041-000, INCLUDING 

ALL APPURTENANCES AND

IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, ET. AL,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-CV-02580-JDP

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Cases on September 26, 2024. Examination of the 

above-captioned actions reveals they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 

1997). Pursuant to Rule 123 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on 

the same or similar claim(s); when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when 

Case 2:23-cr-00177-TLN Document 71 Filed 10/03/24 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

they “involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the 

same Judge . . . is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort.” L.R. 123(a). Further, 

[i]f the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number 

has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a 

single Judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort or other 

economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning all 

higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.

L.R. 123(c). 

The Court concludes the cases involve the same questions of law and fact as they arose 

from the same conduct. Reassignment of the cases to the same district judge is “likely to effect a 

substantial savings of judicial effort” because it will necessarily avoid the “substantial duplication 

of labor” by the judiciary of this district, including any issues regarding discovery or admissibility 

of evidence and any questions of law that may arise thereto. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 123(a)(3)-(4). 

Relating the cases under Local Rule 123, however, merely has the result that both actions 

are assigned to the same judge, it does not consolidate the actions. 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. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:24-cv-02580-JDP is

hereby assigned Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley, and the caption shall read 2:24-cv-02580-

TLN-JDP. The Clerk of the Court is to issue the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 2, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cr-00177-TLN Document 71 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 2