Opinion
CV 01-6933, CV 01-7701 (Weinstein, J.)
December 14, 2001
MEMORANDUM ORDER
When filed, these cases were marked by the plaintiffs as "related" to another case, and, accordingly, assigned to the undersigned judge. See Civ. R. 50.3(e) (E.D.N.Y.). The underlying facts are sufficiently set forth elsewhere. Plaintiffs, complaining about failures to properly execute arrangements for partial compensation of Nazi victims by German institutions, seek to compel the United States to assist the plaintiffs (or at least not to deflect their efforts to assist themselves) — as, they claim, our govermnent has agreed to do. See Austrian and German Holocaust Litigation v. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 250 F.3d 156, 158-64 (2d Cir. 2001); Ukrainian National Assoc. of Jewish Former Prisoners of Concentration Camps Ghettos et al. v. United States, slip op. at 2-5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2001); Ukrainian National Assoc. of Jewish Former Prisoners of Concentration Camps Ghettos et al. v. United States, 2001 WL 1328412 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2001); In re Austrian and German Bank Holocaust Litigation, 2001 WL 228107 at *1-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2001).
Plaintiffs concluded that the instant case was properly assigned as related to the Agent Orange case because of a similar legal issue raised in both litigations — whether a settlement of a class action can be collaterally attacked. See. e.g., Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co., 2001 WL 1524389 (2d Cir. Nov. 30, 2001) (collateral attack permitted on class action settlement in Agent Orange case by aggrieved member of class alleging subsequent injuries). The government suggests that the cases are not "related" and should be reassigned.
Local Rule 50.3 provides for assignment of "related" cases. In part the rule reads:
50.3 Related Cases; Motions for Consolidation of Cases
(a) "Related" Case Defined
A case is "related" for the purpose of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the same judge and magistrate judge.
(b) Civil Cases
By way of illumination and not limitation, the following civil cases are "related"; when a case (A) related to property involved in an earlier pending suit, or (B) involves the same factual issue or grows out of the same transaction as does a pending suit, or (C) involves the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit in a prior case.
The word "related" as used in the rules requires a factually or transactionally related matter. Similar legal issues alone will generally not support assignments to the same judge. See United States v. Escobar, 803 F. Supp. 611, 619 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Am. Direct Marketing. Inc. v. Azad Int'l Inc., 783 F. Supp. 84, 87 (E.D.N.Y. 1992).
The suggestion by the United States that the cases were not related was made after dispositive motions were being considered by the judge to whom the case had been assigned. In the words of the rule, "a substantial saving of judicial resources [was] likely to result," from having this judge decide the motions to which he and the parties had already devoted considerable time.
The motions have now resulted in dismissal of the pending cases.Ukrainian National Assoc. of Jewish Former Prisoners of Concentration Camps Ghettos et al. v. United States, slip op. at 2, 5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2001). Accordingly, there is no reason why these cases should be retained for possible future proceedings by this judge. See Civ. R. 50.3 (f) (E.D.N.Y.) ("designation of cases as related may be corrected sin sponte by the judge to whom they are assigned, by returning to the clerk for reassignment cases erroneously so assigned. . .").
Any further proceedings in these cases should be conducted before a judge of this court selected randomly by the Clerk of the Court.