Local Rule LCrR 57.12: RELATED CASES

LCrR 57.12 RELATED CASES

(a) DEFINITION.

A related case for the purpose of this Rule means as follows:

(1) Criminal cases are deemed related when (i) a superseding indictment has been filed, or (ii) more than one indictment is filed or pending against the same defendant or defendants, or (iii) prosecution against different defendants arises from a common wiretap, search warrant, or activities which are a part of the same alleged criminal event or transaction. A case is considered pending until a defendant has been sentenced.

(2) If a civil forfeiture proceeding is filed concerning a criminal defendant, or a defendant is charged in a criminal case while a civil forfeiture proceeding is pending concerning that defendant, the civil and criminal cases are to be deemed related.

(3) Civil cases are deemed related when the earliest is still pending on the merits in the District Court and they (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 of the same patent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earliest case. However, if a judge in the interest of judicial economy, consolidates a significant number of similar pro se prisoner complaints, or has a single case with a significant number of pro se prisoner plaintiffs, and any of those prisoners later files a new complaint which is unrelated to the subject matter of the consolidated cases or the multiple plaintiffs' case, the judge who receives the new case as related may, if he or she chooses refer the new case to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for random assignment.

(4) Additionally, cases whether criminal or civil shall be deemed related where a case is dismissed, with prejudice or without, and a second case is filed involving the same parties and relating to the same subject matter.

(b) NOTIFICATION OF RELATED CASES.

The parties shall notify the Clerk of the existence of related cases as follows:

(1) At the time of returning an indictment the United States Attorney shall indicate, on a form to be provided by the Clerk, the name, docket number and relationship of any related case pending in this Court or in any other United States District Court. The form shall be mailed to all defense counsel along with the notification of the arraignment. Any objection by the defendant to the related case designation shall be served on the U.S. Attorney and filed with the Clerk within 21 days after arraignment.

(2) At the time of filing any civil action, the plaintiff or his attorney shall indicate, on a form to be provided by the Clerk, the name, docket number and relationship of any related case pending in this Court or in any other United States Court. The plaintiff shall serve this form on the defendant with the complaint. Any objection by the defendant to the related case designation shall be filed and served with the defendant's first responsive pleading or motion.

(3) Whenever an attorney for a party in a civil or criminal action becomes aware of the existence of a related case or cases, the attorney shall immediately notify, in writing, the judges on whose calendars the cases appear and shall serve such notice on counsel for all other parties. Upon receiving information from any source concerning a relationship between pending cases, the Clerk shall transmit that information in writing to the judges on whose calendars the cases appear and to all parties to the proceeding.

(c) ASSIGNMENT OF RELATED CASES.

Related cases noted at or after the time of filing shall be assigned in the following manner:

(1) Where the existence of a related case in this Court is noted at the time the indictment is returned or the complaint is filed, the Clerk shall assign the new case to the judge to whom the oldest related case is assigned. If a judge who is assigned a case under this procedure determines that the cases in question are not related, the judge may transfer the new case to the Calendar and Case Management Committee. If the Calendar and Case Management Committee finds that good cause exists for the transfer, it shall cause the case to be reassigned at random. If the Calendar and Case Management Committee finds that good cause for the transfer does not exist, it may return the case to the transferring judge.

(2) Where the existence of related cases in this Court is revealed after the cases are assigned, the judge having the later-numbered case may transfer that case to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment to the judge having the earlier case. If the Calendar and Case Management Committee finds that good cause exists for the transfer, it shall assign the case to the judge having the earlier case. If the Calendar and Case Management Committee finds that good cause for the transfer does not exist, it may return the case to the transferring judge.

(3) Where a party objects to a designation that cases are related pursuant to subparagraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this Rule, the matter shall be determined by the judge to whom the case is assigned.

(d) REFERRALS TO A SINGLE JUDGE BY THE CALENDAR AND CASE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.

Upon a finding by the Calendar and Case Management Committee that two or more cases assigned to different judges should be referred for a specific purpose to one judge in order to avoid a duplication of judicial effort, the Calendar and Case Management Committee may enter such an order of referral. The order shall be with the consent of the judge to whom the cases will be referred and shall set forth the scope of authority of said judge. Unless otherwise provided, such an order shall not transfer any cases nor affect the assignment of future cases.

COMMENT TO LCvR 57.12(c)(3): The Court has eliminated the provision in this Rule that permitted a party to appeal to the Calendar and Case Management Committee an individual judge's decision with respect to whether cases are related because the Court does not believe it is appropriate for a party to be able to seek review of a decision of one judge of this Court by three of that judge's co-equal colleagues. As amended, the Rule would make the individual judge's decision final.