Nicholson v. Dossey, Badge #897

Filing 94

ORDER Consolidating Cases, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/25/12. All Future Filings Shall be Made in Lead Case Number: 1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO. Member Case Number 1:11-cv-2041-AWI-SKO is CLOSED. Defendants Lynn Martinez and Anthony White added. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
AMYRA NICHOLSON, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO

9
Plaintiffs,

RELATED CASE NO.:
1:11-cv-02041-AWI-SKO

10
v.
11

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES:
12

BAKERSFIELD POLICE OFFICER
DOSSEY, BADGE #897, et al.

1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO (Lead Case)

13
Defendants.

1:11-cv-02041-AWI-SKO

14
/
15
16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

On August 11, 2008, Plaintiffs Amyra Nicholson, minor C.W., minor R.S.W., and Brittany

19

Williams (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Defendants Dossey, Badge #897, City

20

of Bakersfield, Officer R. Slayton, Officer K. Ursery, Officer J. Cooley, Officer J. Martin, Officer

21

Ronnie Dulan, Officer J. Finney, Officer Scott Tunnicliffe, Sergeant Matt Pflugh, the County of

22

Kern, and "Dep. County of Kern H. Appleton." (1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO, Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs

23

asserted, inter alia, that they were subject to unreasonable searches arising out of events that took

24

place on July 29, 2008.

25

On October 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, seeking to add

26

Officers Lynn Martinez and Anthony White. (Doc. 61.) On November 16, 2011, the Court denied

27

Plaintiffs' motion. (Doc. 69.) On December 9, 2011, Plaintiffs C.W. and R.S.W. filed a separate

28

lawsuit against Officers Martinez and White asserting claims arising out of the same series of events

1

that occurred on July 29, 2008, as those complained of in the original action, case no. 1:08-cv-01168-

2

AWI-SKO. On February 16, 2012, the Court ordered that the two matters (1:08-cv-01168-AWI-

3

SKO and 1:11-cv-01168-AWI-SKO) be related and vacated all the scheduling dates in the 1:08-cv-

4

01168-AWI-SKO action. (1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO, Doc. 84.) The Court ordered the parties to

5

submit a joint status report informing the Court how they wished to proceed in the two cases. (1:08-

6

cv-01168-AWI-SKO, Doc. 89.)

7

On May 3, 2012, the parties requested that the Court set a scheduling conference in both

8

matters, establish deadlines, and set the cases for trial. (1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO, Doc. 90, 2:12-

9

15.) The parties also requested that the Court consolidate the cases "for trial and pretrial discovery,

10

including the initial Rule 26 disclosures that will need to be conducted in action no. 1:11-cv-02041."

11

(1:08-cv-1168-AWI-SKO, Doc. 90, 2:15-17.)

12
13
14

II.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if actions before the court
involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:

15

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;

16

(2) consolidate the actions; or

17

(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

18

Even in the absence of a formal motion by a party, the court is empowered to consolidate cases that

19

involve common questions of law or fact sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487

20

(9th Cir. 1987) ("consolidation is within the broad discretion of the court . . . and trial courts may

21

consolidate cases sua sponte").

22

Here, the cases involve overlapping parties and the claims at issue all arise out of events that

23

took place at 3204 Cornell Street in Bakersfield, California on July 29, 2008. In both cases,

24

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that they were subject to unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth

25

and Fourteenth Amendments. As these cases share common questions of law, arise out of the same

26

nucleus of facts, and involve overlapping parties, efficiency favors consolidation. Moreover, the

27

parties have informally requested that the Court consolidate these matters for discovery and trial.

28
2

1
2

A scheduling conference has been held in both cases, and one schedule and one trial date will
be set.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6

Action number 1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO and action number 1:11-cv-02041-AWISKO shall be consolidated; and

7

2.

8

All future filings shall be made in case number 1:08-cv-01168-AWI-SKO, which
shall be deemed the lead case.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:
ie14hj

May 25, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3