Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02836/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02836-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Besaro Mobile Home Park
Plaintiff
Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC
Plaintiff
The City of Fremont
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BESARO MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC,

dba BESARO MOBILE HOME PARK,

Plaintiff, No. C 01-2836 PJH

v. ORDER DECLINING TO

RELATE CASES

THE CITY OF FREMONT,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is a referral of case number C 05-2886 SBA, Besaro Mobile Home

Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, for consideration whether the case is related to the earlierfiled action in this court captioned above. Judge Armstrong referred the later-filed action to

this court because it appeared, upon review of the case, that the two actions might be

related. 

Both actions involve the same parties and involve a challenge to the identical city

ordinance. Thus, the first part of the relatedness test is met. Civ. L. R. 3-12 (a)(1). 

However, subsection (a)(2) of the rule requires that, in addition to a substantial similarity of

parties and substance, it also must “appear likely that there will be an unduly burdensome

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

different judges.” Neither factor is present here. The earlier-filed action was dismissed

more than four years ago, on February 21, 2002. The parties announced their settlement

at their first appearance at the initial case management conference and filed a stipulation

for dismissal shortly thereafter. No motions were filed and the action was dismissed prior

to any consideration by this court of the merits. Having not considered the merits, the

undersigned judge has absolutely no recollection of the case. As a result, judicial economy

Case 4:01-cv-02836-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/06/06 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

is not necessarily promoted by relating the cases for consideration before this court. The

court further notes that while not expressly objecting to the relation, the defendant raises

these same concerns in its papers.

Accordingly, given that the interests identified in Civ. L. R. 3-12 (a)(2) are not

implicated here, the court DECLINES to relate the later-filed case, number C 05-2886 SBA,

to the above-captioned action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-02836-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2