Court Opinion

ID: 9376091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 20:00:51.921942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.134514
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 SANU MILLARD, et al.,

         Plaintiffs,

 v.                                                           Case No. 1:22-cv-2672-RCL

 GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF
 COLUMBIA,

         Defendant.

                                    MEMORANDUM ORDER

        Upon consideration of the defendant’s motion to return this case to the Calendar Committee

for reassignment, Def.’s Mot. Reassignment, ECF No. 12, the plaintiffs’ opposition, Pls.’ Mem.

Opp’n, ECF No. 15, the applicable law, and the whole record, the Court GRANTS the motion and

ORDERS that the Clerk shall return this case to the Calendar and Case Management Committee

for random reassignment.

                                          I. LEGAL STANDARD

        “The general rule governing all new cases filed in this courthouse is that they are to be

randomly assigned.” United States v. Volvo Const. Equip. AB, 922 F. Supp. 2d 67, 68 (D.D.C.

2013) (quoting Tripp v. Exec. Office of President, 196 F.R.D. 201, 202 (D.D.C. 2000)). An

exception to that presumption is located in Local Civil Rule 40.5, which, “in the interests of judicial

economy,” id., provides that a new case shall be assigned “to the judge to whom the oldest related

case is assigned” if the plaintiff notes the existence of a related case at the time of filing. Local

Civ. R. 40.5(c)(1). For civil cases to be related “when the earliest is still pending on the merits in

the district court,” the new case must “(i) relate to common property, or (ii) involve common issues

of fact, or (iii) grow out of the same event or transaction, or (iv) involve the validity or infringement

                                                       1
of the same patent” as the earliest case. Local Civ. R. 40.5(a)(3). The party opposing a related-

case designation may make an objection and the judge to whom the case has been assigned shall

determine whether the objection is meritorious. Local Civ. R. 40.5(b)(2), (c)(3).

                                         II. DISCUSSION

       Plaintiffs here relied on the related case rule to have this case assigned to the undersigned.

Pls.’ Notice of Related Case, ECF No. 2. Specifically, when filing a notice of related case,

plaintiffs asserted that this new case involves common issues of fact and grows out of the same

event or transaction as an earlier pending case, Smith et al. v. Government of the District of

Columbia, 15-cv-737 (RCL). Id. Defendant, meanwhile, asserts that neither applies and therefore

this case should be reassigned. The burden is on the party seeking to have a case designated as

related to show that Local Civil Rule 40.5 applies. Volvo Const. Equip. AB, 922 F. Supp. 2d at 68.

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden.

       Plaintiffs’ argument, in its entirety, consists of the following:

               The common issue of fact, and the same event or transaction, is the
               government of the District of Columbia’s policy and practice of
               denying guns to law abiding people, residents, and non-residents
               alike.

               In Smith, the District effected its policy and practice of denying guns
               to law-abiding people by allowing only residents to register guns,
               and only for use in the home, and by denying everyone licenses to
               carry a handgun in public.

               In this case, the District effects its policy by allowing the Chief to
               promulgate overly restrictive registration regulations, and to use the
               licensing criteria to deny licenses to people the Chief, in the Chief’s
               unfettered discretion, considers unsuitable.

               But, the facts of the practice remain the same.

Pls.’ Mem. Opp’n 2.

                                                      2
       In sum, plaintiffs argue that because the District of Columbia is restricting gun ownership

in both cases (thereby evidencing a policy of prejudice against gun ownership), the two cases

should be understood as related. But that is decidedly insufficient to establish that both cases

involve common issues of fact or grow out of the same event or transaction.

   A. Plaintiffs’ Case and Smith Do Not Involve Common Issues of Fact

       The common issues of fact test largely revolves around whether “the Court will be required

to make similar factual determinations in both cases.” Singh v. McConville, 187 F. Supp. 3d 152,

156 (D.D.C. 2016). That understanding naturally flows from the reason that circumvention of

random assignment is sometimes permissible—the importance of judicial economy. Comm. on

Judiciary v. McGahn, 391 F. Supp. 3d 116, 118 (D.D.C. 2019). If similar factual determinations

are involved in two cases, judicial economy is served by nonrandom assignment. On the other

hand, to allow tangentially related cases to be assigned to the same judge as an earlier case would

be to decrease “fair and equal distribution of cases to all judges,” embrace, rather than “avoid[]

public perception or appearance of favoritism in assignments,” and increase, rather than “reduce[]

opportunities for judge-shopping” without a corresponding benefit to judicial economy. Tripp,

196 F.R.D. at 202.

       To determine whether similar factual determinations are required across both cases, courts

have often looked to whether they “focus on different events, involve different times periods, and

turn on district legally theories.” See, e.g., Klayman v. Porter, No. 20-cv-3109 (RDM), 2021 WL

1668067, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2021). Plaintiffs fail on those grounds.

       First, the events are dissimilar. Smith involved D.C. Code §§ 22-4517, 22-4504, 7-

2502.01, 7-2502.02, 7-2506.01, and a policy of seizing and keeping guns after arrests. Smith v.

D.C. (“Smith I”), 387 F. Supp. 3d 8, 15–16 (D.D.C. 2019); Smith v. D.C. (“Smith II”), 568 F. Supp.

                                                    3
3d 55, 58–61 (D.D.C. 2021). Specifically, Smith involved challenges to arrest and post-arrest

procedures for guns, along with public carry, ammunition possession, and non-D.C. resident

possession, while this case involves “unconstitutional handgun registration and licensing”

practices—with no overlapping laws or regulations being challenged. Smith I, 387 F. Supp. 3d

at 15–16; Smith II, 568 F. Supp. 3d at 58–61; see Compl. ¶¶ 1, 193–247, ECF No. 1. In sum, the

instant case and Smith involve attacks on different laws, different policies, and involve different

circumstances.

       Next, the pertinent facts in the two cases occurred during different time periods. Smith

focused on prior arrests and post-arrest retentions, while this complaint focuses on current policies

and practices for registration and licensing. Smith I, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 15–16; Smith II, 568 F.

Supp. 3d at 58–61; Compl. ¶¶ 193–247. The named plaintiffs here applied for licenses, or received

a notice of revocation of licensure, between 2019 and 2021, while Smith was filed in 2015 and the

named plaintiffs were arrested between May 15, 2012, and October 10, 2014. Compl. ¶¶ 72, 110,

149; Smith I, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 15–16; Smith II, 568 F. Supp. 3d at 58–61. The gap alone between

the events giving rise to the claims by plaintiffs in this case as compared to the Smith case, not to

mention the disparate circumstances, strongly counsels against a finding of related cases.

       Finally, the legal theories largely differ.       The Court in Smith considered a Second

Amendment challenge, a Fourth Amendment seizure and retention challenge, a Fifth Amendment

right to travel challenge, a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge, and a Fifth Amendment

procedural due process challenge. Smith I, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 15–16; Smith II, 568 F. Supp. 3d

at 61. Here the plaintiffs ask the Court to consider a Second Amendment challenge, a Fifth

Amendment vagueness challenge, and a Fifth Amendment procedural due process challenge.

Compl. ¶¶ 193–247. While the Fifth Amendment procedural due process and Second Amendment

                                                     4
challenges invoke the same legal rights, the legal theories still differ across the cases. In Smith,

the procedural due process challenge focused on the process for seizing of handguns and

ammunition, while this case challenges the process for denial and revocation decisions for

licensure. Id. ¶¶ 239–247; Smith I, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 15–16. And while the Second Amendment

theories are similar in that they involve restrictions of firearm possession, it cannot be that every

case by any plaintiffs challenging gun policies in this District shall be assigned to the undersigned

as a related case to Smith. The similarity of a Second Amendment challenge, alone, is insufficient

to establish common issues of fact.

       Given the lack of common factual determinations to be made across the cases, they are not

related under the common issues of fact prong.

   B. Plaintiffs’ Case and Smith Do Not Grow Out of the Same Transaction or Occurrence

       Plaintiffs’ alternative basis for having designated the cases as related, that they grow out

of the same event or transaction, is even further afield. Cases are not related under the outgrowth

test simply because they involve the same defendant or similar topic areas. See McGahn, 391 F.

Supp. 3d at 122. Rather, this prong is reserved for those situations where some event or transaction

“uniquely precipitated this action” in a manner that suggests judicial economy would be gained by

the same judge presiding over both. See id. These cases involve policies by the District of

Columbia that both restrict gun ownership, licensure, and possession, but that is not a unique event

overcoming the broader good of random assignment. See id.; Lucas v. Barreto, No. 04-cv-1262

(EGS), 2005 WL 607923, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2005).

                                       III. CONCLUSION

       In sum, plaintiffs’ showing has not overcome the important presumption for random

assignment of cases. That rule, the heart of which is ensuring that “the People” have confidence

                                                     5