Mere moments ago, Judge John Kronstadt, before whom Chua v. City of L.A. is being heard, filed an order declining to transfer or combine this case with a couple other cases arising from the same set of anti-police-brutality protests in the Fall of 2014.¹ This is evidently in response to this Notice of Related Cases filed last Wednesday by the plaintiffs. I’m not sure what it all means, but the Judge sounds a little cranky, as you may see after the break if that’s the way your pleasure tends.

Although Case No. CV 16-0216 and Case No. CV 16-0237² may be related, these cases, as well as Case No. CV 16-1187,³ were informally consolidated and referred to Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish for a global settlement conference. See Semhar Girmay Amha v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 16-0216 FMO (AFMx) (Dkt. 18, Court’s Order of May 12, 2016). Also, the posture of Case No. CV 16-0237, is far more advanced than Case No. CV 16-0216. For example, Case No. 16-0237 is already at the class certification stage. Given how far along Case No. CV 16-0237 is at this time, it would be a waste of judicial resources to transfer Case No. CV 16-0237 to the undersigned. Finally, plaintiff’s counsel in Case No. CV 16-0237 does not explain why they waited nine months to file the Notice of Related Case.

Picture of John Kronstadt is in the public domain for the usual federal reasons and you can get a copy via Wikimedia if you don’t like ours for some reason.

1. I’m covering one of these cases, Amha v. City of L.A.
2. This is Chua v. City of L.A.
3. This is Belay and Ahmed v. City of L.A.