SOLID INCOME LIMITED v. ENERGYINVEST LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-09422
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SOLID INCOME LIMITED, et al., Case No. 24-cv-09424-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, Re: Dkt. No. 41 9 v.

10 AMERICAN HOMEENERGY LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 12 MOTIONS TO RELATE CASES 13 SOLID INCOME LIMITED, 14 Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-09422-HSG

15 v. Re: Dkt. No. 41 16 ENERGYINVEST LLC, et al., 17 Defendants.

19 Solid Income Limited et. al vs. American HomeEnergy LLC et. al, 24-cv-09424-HSG, and 20 Solid Income Limited vs. EnergyInvest LLC, 24-cv-09422-HSG, are related cases currently before 21 the Court. Both actions were filed on December 26, 2024. 22 Defendant American Home Energy asks the Court to find AEC Yield Capital LLC et al v. 23 American Home Energy, Inc., 24-mc-80225-PHK, which was filed before Magistrate Judge Peter 24 Kang on September 6, 2024, to be related to Solid Income Limited et. al vs. American 25 HomeEnergy LLC et. al, 24-cv-09424-HSG, and reassigned to Judge Gilliam. Similarly, 26 Defendant EnergyInvest LLC asks the Court to find Solid Income Limited vs. EnergyInvest LLC, 27 24-mc-80224-SK, which was filed before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on September 6, 2024, to 1 Judge Gilliam. The cases before Judge Kim and Judge Kang seek enforcement of default 2 || judgments entered in federal courts in New York. 3 “[D]istrict courts [have] broad discretion in interpreting, applying, and determining the 4 || requirements of their own local rules and general orders.” United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 5 1414 (9th Cir. 1989). One intent of Civil Local Rule 3-12(b) is to direct motions to relate to the 6 || judge with the earliest-filed case. Generally, the cases at issue are both district court lawsuits, 7 such that the earliest-filed case and the lowest-numbered case necessarily are the same. But here, g || the miscellaneous-numbered judgment enforcement actions before Judge Kang and Judge Kim 9 were filed in September 2024, three months before the cases presently before this Court—24-cv- 19 || 09424-HSG and 24-cv-09422-HSG. 11 The Court finds that these motions are more appropriately directed to Judge Kang and

2 Judge Kim, whose cases were already “pending in this district” when the cases before this Court E 13 were filed. Civ. L.R. 3-12(b). Accordingly, the motions to relate, Dkt. No. 41 in both 24-cv- 14 09424-HSG and 24-cv-09422-HSG, are DENIED without prejudice to the parties seeking a 5 15 finding of relatedness explaining the basis under the law and the local rules for reassigning earlier- 16 filed matters to the undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 8/12/2025 | | | *0 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 71 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28