Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SATISH RAMACHANDRAN, Case No. 20-cv-03693-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DETERMINING CASES ARE 9 v. NOT RELATED

10 KIRK BALLARD, et al., [Re: ECF No. 129] 11 Defendants.

12 13 On July 14, 2023, the City Defendants in Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos et al., No. 14 5:23-cv-02928-SVK (“Ramachandran III”) moved under Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 to have 15 Ramachandran III related to this case, Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger, City of Los Altos et 16 al., No. 5:20-cv-03693-BLF (“Ramachandran II”). ECF No. 129. City Defendants are the City of 17 Los Altos, Kirk Ballard, and Christopher Jordan. Id. Defendant Pamela Jacobs filed a statement 18 in support of the motion. ECF No. 130. City Defendants argue that the cases should be related 19 because Ramachandran II and Ramachandran III involve substantially the same parties and 20 events, and they also argue that finding these cases are related will avoid an unduly burdensome 21 duplication of labor and expense, as well as conflicting results. ECF No. 129 at 3-5. 22 Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, an action is related to another where:

23 (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event; and 24 (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases 25 are conducted before different Judges. 26 Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). While the allegations and defendants in the cases overlap, the Court determines 27 that the cases should not be related because doing so will not avoid “an unduly burdensome 1 IT was closed on April 8, 2021. ECF No. 128. Because Ramachandran IT has been concluded for 2 || over two years, relating the cases will not avoid a duplication of labor and expense. See Rezner v. 3 Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG, No. C 06-02064 JW, C 08-03479 SC, 2009 WL 3458704, 4 |} at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009) (stating there was no “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and 5 expense” where allegedly related cases were stayed pending mediation and closed on appeal); 6 Carlyle Fortran Tr. v. NVIDIA Corp., No. C 05-00427 JW, C 08-04634 RMW, 2008 WL 7 || 4717467, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008) (finding “little possibility” of “unduly burdensome 8 || duplication of labor... or conflicting results” where the other cases pending before the Court 9 || were “either on appeal before the Ninth Circuit or ha[d] been inactive for over two years”). 10 Accordingly, the Court determines that Case No. 23-cv-2928 and Case No. 20-cv-3693 are 11 NOT RELATED within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12. IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 |] Dated: July 18, 2023

2 ETH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28