Parker v. Alfa Laval Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 20, 2020
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00175
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 David Parker, et al., No. CV-20-00175-TUC-DCB

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Alfa Laval Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On April 22, 2020, this case was opened pursuant to a Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1.) 16 On April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Administrative Consideration to 17 Determine whether this case is related to the following cases: CV 20-00172-JR, Parker et 18 al v. Alfa Laval Incorporated et. al., and CV 20-00174-DTF, Parker et al v. Alfa Laval 19 Incorporated et. al. These two cases have now be transferred to the Honorable Raner C. 20 Collins and are now captioned: CV 20-00172-TUC RCC and CV 20-00174-TUC RCC. 21 Pursuant to LRCiv. 42.1(b), the Honorable Judge Collins, who presides over the 22 lowest case number, CV 20-172 TUC RCC, shall decide any questions of relatedness to 23 the extent the Defendants may be seeking consolidation of the cases. This Court may, 24 however, voluntarily reassign its case to the Honorable Raner C. Collins, pursuant to 25 LRCIV 42.1(e) because; 1) it arose from substantially the transaction or event as the two 26 cases pending before him; 2) involves substantially the same parties or property and likely 27 calls for the determination of substantially the same questions of law. The Court also 28 transfers this case to Judge Collins to prevent substantial duplication of labor between the 1 two courts and for reasons of judicial economy and the availability of judicial resources. 2 This case is in fact identical to the two cases pending before Judge Collins. All were opened 3 by the Clerk’s Office upon the filing of Notices of Removal by different defendants named 4 in the state court proceeding being removed here. 5 This removal action is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442, which does not require 6 unanimity by all defendants served at the time of removal. Hatcher v. City of Porterville, 7 2012 WL 439424, *6 n. 7 (Calif. February 9, 20212) (citing Ely Valley Mines Inc., v. 8 Hartford Accident Indemnity, 644 F.2d 1310, 1315 (9th Cir. 1981) (recognizing exception 9 to § 1441(c)(2) unanimity rule for removals made under § 1442)). There is, however, no 10 provision for piecemeal removals of state actions. Subsequent to filing for removal, “the 11 state court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded,” 28 U.S.C. 12 1446(d), or claims are severed and remanded, 1441(c)(2). Therefore, once the state court 13 proceeding was removed, here, pursuant to the Notice of Removal filed in CV 20-172 TUC 14 RCC, there was no state court proceeding remaining for further removal. It appears to this 15 Court, that the Clerk’s office mistakenly opened CV 20-172 and 20-175. Because this 16 Court is no longer the district court having the lowest case number, it does not decide the 17 pending motion for a determination of relatedness, except to the extent necessary, here, to 18 determine that this case should be transferred to the Honorable Raner C. Collins. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Determination of Relatedness (Doc. 8) is 21 GRANTED IN PART and this case is transferred to the Honorable Raner C. Collins, 22 pursuant to LRCIV 42.1(c). 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by the Clerk 2|| of the Court to the Chief Judge, the Honorable G. Murray Snow. 3 Dated this 15th day of May, 2020. 4 SS YY ' Honorable David C. But 8 United StatesPrstrict Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-