Scott Joseph Wallace v. Cellco Partnership et al

Filing 36

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONSOLIDATION by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. The parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from the date of this Order why Wallace I (case no. CV 14-8052 DSF (AS)) and Wallace II (case no. CV 15-8680 DSF (AS)) should not be consolidated. (See Order for complete details) (afe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8052 DSF (AS);
CV 15-8680 DSF (ASx)

Title

Scott Joseph Wallace v. Cellco Partnership, et al.,

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 18, 2016

Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge

Alma Felix

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONSOLIDATION

On October 17, 2014, in case no. CV 14-8052 DSF (AS) (“Wallace I”), pro se plaintiff Scott
Joseph Wallace (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint raising, inter alia, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the following defendants: (1) the City of Los Angeles (“City”); (2) the Los Angeles Police Department
(“LAPD”); (3) LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, in his individual and official capacities; (4) Cellco Partnership
dba Verizon (“Verizon”); (5) AT&T, Inc.; (6) Harris Wireless; (7) the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”); and (8) former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca. That same day, Wallace I was referred to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of General Order 05-07.
On December 17, 2014, AT&T, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction, which the Court granted on February 9, 2015, dismissing AT&T, Inc., from the
action without leave to amend. The Court also sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the FBI,
LAPD, and Chief Beck and former Sheriff Baca in their official capacities without leave to amend,
dismissed Plaintiff's claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 3121 without leave to amend, and dismissed the
remainder of Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend.
On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in Wallace I against Verizon,
Harris Corp. (“Harris”), AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”), the City, Chief Beck in his individual
capacity, and Does 1-10. On May 8, 2015, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave
to amend. On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in Wallace I against
defendants Verizon, Harris, AT&T Mobility, the City, Chief Beck in his individual capacity, and Does
1-10. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in Wallace I remains pending.
On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against
various defendants (“Superior Court action”). (Declaration of Elizabeth Greenwood (“Greenwood
Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-2, Exh. 1). On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in the Superior
Court action against Verizon, Harris, AT&T, the City, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Chief Beck and Does 1-10.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8052 DSF (AS);
CV 15-8680 DSF (ASx)

Date

Title

March 18, 2016

Scott Joseph Wallace v. Cellco Partnership, et al.,

(Greenwood Decl., ¶¶ 1-2, Exh. 6). On November 6, 2015, the Superior Court action was removed to
this Court and assigned case no. CV 15-8680 DSF (AS) (“Wallace II”). On March 15, 2016, Wallace II
was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to General Order 05-07. Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint in Wallace II remains pending.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). The Court
“has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district[,]” Investors
Research Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see
also Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court generally has
‘broad’ discretion to consolidate actions[.]”), and it may do so sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829
F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, the Court “weighs
the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense
that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
Here, Wallace I and Wallace II clearly appear to involve common questions of law or fact.
Therefore, the parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from the date of
this Order why Wallace I (case no. CV 14-8052 DSF (AS)) and Wallace II (case no. CV 15-8680 DSF
(AS)) should not be consolidated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

0
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

AF

Page 2 of 2