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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Center for Biological Diversity, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Sally Jewell, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-00019-TUC-JGZ 

ORDER 

Center for Biological Diversity, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Ryan Zinke, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00047-TUC-JAS (BGM) 

ORDER

 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of 

Wildlife’s Motion to Transfer case number CV-18-00047-TUC-JAS (BGM), currently 

assigned to the Honorable James A. Soto, to the Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps (Doc. 191). 

Federal Defendants responded on March 16, 2018. (Doc. 192.) Plaintiffs replied on 

March 23, 2018. (Doc. 194.) 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiffs assert that the case pending before Judge Soto is substantially related in 

facts, law, and parties to three consolidated cases and one related case pending before this 

Case 4:18-cv-00047-JGZ Document 22 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Court,1 as well as to an earlier case litigated before the Court.2 (Doc. 191.) Federal 

Defendants take no position, although they assert that the transfer will not result in 

significant efficiencies because the pending case challenges different rules and recovery 

plans than those involved in case no. CV-15-00019. (Doc. 192 at 1-2.) 

II. DISCUSSION 

 “District court judges have ‘broad discretion’ regarding the assignment or 

reassignment of cases.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United 

States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1414 (9th Cir. 1989)). Local Civil Rule 42.1 provides that 

a party may file a motion to transfer cases pending before different judges to a single 

judge if the cases (1) arise from substantially the same transaction or event; (2) involve 

substantially the same parties or property; (3) involve the same patent, trademark, or 

copyright; (4) call for determination of substantially the same questions of law; or (5) for 

any other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. 

LRCiv. 42.1(a). Each factor provides an independently sufficient basis for transfer. See

Smith v. Sperling, 2011 WL 4101508 (D. Ariz. Sept. 14, 2011). 

 The case at issue here arises from substantially similar facts, parties, and 

transactions or events as cases previously argued before this Court. Case number CV-15-

00019-JGZ, which involves the Mexican Wolf 10(j) Rule, shares substantially similar 

underlying facts and parties. Case number CV-18-00047 challenges the November 2017 

Recovery plan, which arose from the settlement of an earlier case before this Court.3

 

Given the Court’s familiarity with the background facts and disputes, the Court concludes 

it is in the interest of judicial economy to grant the Motion to Transfer. 

 THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer case (Doc. 

191) is GRANTED. 

// 

 1

 The consolidated cases are filed under lead case number CV-15-00019-JGZ and 

related case number CV-16-00094-TUC-JGZ. 

2

 No. 4:14-cv-02472-TUC-JGZ, 2016 WL 7852469 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2016). 

3

 No. 4:14-cv-02472-TUC-JGZ, 2016 WL 7852469 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2016). 

Case 4:18-cv-00047-JGZ Document 22 Filed 04/10/18 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT case no. CV-18-00047-JAS (BGM) is 

transferred and reassigned to the Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps pursuant to LRCiv. 42.1. 

The parties are advised that all future filings must bear the following case number: 4:18-

cv-00047-JGZ. 

 Dated this 10th day of April, 2018. 

Case 4:18-cv-00047-JGZ Document 22 Filed 04/10/18 Page 3 of 3