1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE SUNDBY and EDITH Case No.: 23-CV-01239-GPC-AHG

LITTLEFIELD SUNDBY; DALE

12 SUNDBY and EDITH LITTLEFIELD ORDER OVERRULING 13 SUNDBY, Trustees, OBJECTION TO TRANSFER

PURSUANT TO LOW NUMBER

14 Plaintiffs,

RULE

15 v. [ECF No. 78] 16 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY; and DOES 1-X, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 On July 27, 2023, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 40.1.e and over Plaintiffs Dale 21 Sundby’s and Edith Littlefield Sundby’s objections, Case No. 23-cv-1239 was transferred 22 to Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. ECF No. 77; see ECF No. 72, 74 (objections). Plaintiffs have 23 filed an additional objection to the transfer, ECF No. 78, which the Court overrules for the 24 reasons explained below. 25 In an effort to conserve judicial resources and “to avoid unnecessary duplication of 26 judicial effort,” Rule 40.1(j) instructs that “all pending civil actions and proceedings, which 27 1 are determined to be related to any other pending civil action or proceeding pursuant to the 2 criteria set forth in [Rule] 40.1.e will be assigned to the district . . . judge to whom the 3 lowest numbered case was assigned.” Rule 40.1.e sets forth six criteria for consideration, 4 including whether the cases “arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, 5 happenings, or events” and whether they “involve the same or substantially the same 6 parties or property.” Additionally, Rule 40.1.a allows “[t]he judge to whom a case is 7 assigned . . . [to] transfer such a case at any time to a consenting judge in the interest of 8 efficient administration of the judicial business of the district.” 9 The above-captioned case was transferred to this Court because the transferor and 10 transferee courts each agreed that it “ar[o]se from the same or substantially identical 11 transactions, happenings or events” and “involve[d] the same or substantially the same 12 parties or property,” as the Low Numbered Case. ECF No. 77. The Low Numbered Case, 13 Case No. 19-cv-390, was brought by Dale Sundby, pro se, “as trustee of the Dale H. Sundby 14 and Edith Littlefield Sundby, Trust No. 1989-1 dated January 26, 1989” and concerned 15 “the refinancing of a property in La Jolla, California.” Sundby v. Marquee Funding Grp., 16 No. 21-55504, No. 21-55582, 2022 WL 4826445, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2022). It was 17 dismissed on July 21, 2023. Case No. 19-cv-390 ECF No. 367. Currently pending in Case 18 No. 23-cv-1239 is a motion to amend the complaint which would add the same defendants 19 to the present proceedings as were involved in the Low Numbered Case. Compare id., 20 with ECF No. 70 at 1 (list of defendants). Additionally, the property at issue in the above- 21 captioned matter is the same property for which the refinancing at issue in the Low 22 Numbered Case was secured. Compare ECF No. 70 at 9–10, with Case No. 19-cv-390 23 ECF No. 13 at 5. Thus, these two cases satisfy at least two Low Number Rule criteria. See 24 Rule 40.1.e.1, .2. 25 Plaintiffs object to the transfer of the above-captioned matter only because Case No. 26 19-cv-390 is no longer “pending” before this Court and they argue it is no longer “subject 27 1 || to the Low Number Rule.” ECF No. 78 at 2. Plaintiffs do not engage with the application 2 || of the Low Number Rule to any case “currently filed,” which would presumably apply to 3 || Case No. 19-cv-390. See Rule 40.1.e. Furthermore, given that on July 25, 2023, Sundby 4 || filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order of dismissal in Case No. 19-cv-390, see Case 5 || No. 19-cv-390 ECF No. 370, it is indisputable that Case No. 19-cv-390 is still “pending” 6 || in the traditional sense of the word. See Pending, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) 7 ||\(“Remaining undecided; awaiting decision”). Finally, Rule 40.1.a offers additional 8 || support that the above-titled case was properly transferred to this Court “in the interest of 9 || efficient administration of the judicial business of the district” given this Court’s extensive 10 || experience and knowledge of the parties and legal matters at issue in both this case and the 11 Numbered Case. 12 For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ objection is hereby OVERRULED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: August 3, 2023 2 st I5 Hon. athe Cee 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ; 28 23-CV-01239-GPC-AHG