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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?