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

1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO,

Plaintiff,

v. CIV. NO. S-04-1358 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

KATHLEEN ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CIV. NO. S-05-559 GEB/PAN

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

 /

BRENDA DIMARO and HALLIE LAVICK,

Plaintiffs,

v. CIV. NO. S-05-1726 GEB/JFM

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., RELATED CASE ORDER

Defendants.

 /

////

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 68 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1 Although no Notice of Related Cases was filed in No. Civ.

S-05-559, the court takes judicial notice of plaintiff Ellis'

oppositions to the motions to dismiss and transfer, in which she

notifies the court that the matter is related to the lead case

DeFazio. Additionally, in the Notice of Related Cases filed in the

DeFazio and the Dimaro cases, counsel for plaintiff further

notified the court that the Ellis action was related. The court

finds the action is, indeed, related.

2

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that 

the three (3) actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule

83-123(a) (E.D. Cal. 1997). The actions involve the same Plan, and

are based on the same or similar claims, the same property,

transaction or event, similar questions of fact and the same

question of law.1

Accordingly, the assignment of the matters to the same judge

and magistrate judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of

judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the

parties.

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under

Local Rule 83-123 merely has the result that the three (3) actions

are assigned to the same judge and magistrate judge; no

consolidation of the actions is effected. 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 actions denominated CIV. NO.

S-05-559 GEB/PAN and CIV. NO. S-05-1726 GEB/JFM be, and the same

hereby are, reassigned to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton and Magistrate

Judge Gregory G. Hollows for all further proceedings, and any dates

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 68 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

currently set in this reassigned case only, including any hearing

dates currently set before Judge Burrell, are hereby VACATED. The

parties are directed to re-notice any previously-filed motions for

hearing before the undersigned. Henceforth, the caption on

documents filed in the reassigned cases shall be shown as CIV. NO.

S-05-559 LKK/GGH and CIV. NO. S-05-1726 LKK/GGH, respectively. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make

appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to

compensate for this reassignment.

DATED: October 17, 2005.

 

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 68 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 3