Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01392/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01392-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
GMRI, Inc.
Defendant
NDS Development Corporation
Defendant
The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1418
Defendant
Ronald Wilson
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RONALD WILSON,

 CASE NO. CIV-06-01072 WBS DAD 

Plaintiff,

v.

GMRI, INC., dba RED LOBSTER

#693; NDS DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER

RONALD WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

 CASE NO. CIV-06-1392 FCD JFM

GMRI, INC. dba THE OLIVE

GARDEN ITALIAN RESTAURANT

#1418; NDS DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court has received the Notice and Motion to Relate

Cases concerning the above-captioned cases filed on August 7,

2006. See Local Rule 83-123. Specifically, counsel for

defendants points out that both cases are brought by the same

Case 2:06-cv-01392-FCD-EFB Document 10 Filed 08/10/06 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

plaintiff and involve restaurants in the same shopping center. 

However, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in these actions bring

hundreds of actions each year, and it is not uncommon for many of

them to involve business establishments in the same shopping

center. It would be impractical for the court to adjust its

calendar to assure that cases involving a single shopping center

be assigned to a single judge. Nor would it be practical to

assign all cases involving a single plaintiff to a single judge. 

Indeed, the identity of the plaintiff is of little importance in

this type of action. Of greater significance is the nature and

degree of the alleged barriers. Although plaintiffs in these

cases commonly complain about the same kinds of alleged barriers,

the relevant inquiry is typically specific to the individual

case. 

The court has, accordingly, determined that it is

inappropriate to relate or reassign the cases at this time, and

therefore declines to do so. This order is issued for

informational purposes only, and shall have no effect on the

status of the cases, including any previous Related (or NonRelated) Case Order of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-01392-FCD-EFB Document 10 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2