Tamora Whitfield v. EXP Realty of California, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH DIANNA STINNETT V. EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 2:24-CV-05349-FLA (BFMx) by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only withi n fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated with the Stinnett Action. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions without further notice. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TAMORA WHITFIELD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:24-cv-09312-FLA (BFMx)

v.
EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA,
INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
CONSOLIDATED WITH DIANNA
STINNETT V. EXP REALTY OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL., CASE
NO. 2:24-CV-05349-FLA (BFMx)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a

2
3

common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to

4

consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Invs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for

5

Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams

6

Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (courts “may consolidate cases sua

7

sponte”) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the

8

interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and

9

prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp.,

10

303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted).

11

Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from

12

consolidating this action with Dianna Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc., et al.,

13

Case No. 2:24-cv-05349-FLA (BFMx) (“Stinnett Action”) outweighs any potential for

14

delay, confusion, and prejudice, as each action asserts claims against the same

15

defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227,

16

et seq.

17

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only

18

within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated

19

with the Stinnett Action. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length.

20

Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions without further notice.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: March 5, 2025

_______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2