Sami Ammari v. City of Los Angeles

Filing 20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONSOLIDATION by Judge Otis D Wright, II: The Court is in receipt of the parties Rule 26(f) Joint Report. The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 42(a) with Lone Star Security andVideo, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:11-cv-2113-ODW(FMOx) (C.D. Cal. filedMarch 11, 2011). The issues, parties, and attorneys are the same in both caseswith the exception of the plaintiffs identities. Yet , the Court believe that the plaintiffs in the two cases are related. The parties have 14 days to comply with this order in writing; no hearing is required.Further, the California Attorney General did not intervene in this case by theAugust 24, 2012 deadline. Accordingly, the STAY IS HEREBY LIFTED. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SAMI AMMARI,

9
10
11

v.

Case No. 2:12-cv-4644-ODW(FMOx)
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
CONSOLIDATION

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant.

12
13

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Rule 26(f) Joint Report. The Court

14

hereby ORDERS the parties to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be

15

consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) with Lone Star Security and

16

Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:11-cv-2113-ODW(FMOx) (C.D. Cal. filed

17

March 11, 2011).

18

The issues, parties, and attorneys are the same in both cases—with the

19

exception of the plaintiffs’ identities. Yet, the Court believe that the plaintiffs in the

20

two cases are related. The parties have 14 days to comply with this order in writing;

21

no hearing is required.

22
23

Further, the California Attorney General did not intervene in this case by the
August 24, 2012 deadline. Accordingly, the stay is hereby lifted.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

August 28, 2012

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE