Hawecker et al v. Sorensen

Filing 83

ORDER Re Plaintiffs' Motion For Consolidation and Application to Extend Time to File Motions In Limine, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/22/2011. (Plaintiffs motion for consolidation is GRANTED. The amended final pretrial order is VACAT ED. Plaintiffs application to extend the time to file motions in limine is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed form of order consistent with this memorandum decision within five (5) days of electronic service of this memorandum decision.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CARRIE HAWECKER and

5

MICHELLE BROUSSARD,

v.

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR CONSOLIDATION AND
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

RAWLAND LEON SORENSEN,

(DOC. 77, 81)

6
7

1:10-cv-00085 OWW JLT

Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Defendant.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court are: (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for an order:
(i) consolidating action with related case, (ii) vacating the

15

amended final pretrial order, and (iii) setting the consolidated

16

action for scheduling conference (Doc. 77); and (2) Plaintiffs’

17

application to extend the time to file motions in limine until

18

after ruling on the motion to consolidate (Doc. 81). The United

19
20

States, Plaintiff in the related case, does not oppose and joins
in the motion to consolidate. Doc. 79. Defendant, in pro per, did

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

not file an objection. The motions were heard April 22, 2011.
II.

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against
Defendant alleging sexual harassment and sex discrimination in
violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et
seq., and related state laws. Doc. 1. On October 27, 2010,
1

1

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class action for injunctive relief

2

(Doc. 22), which was denied due to Plaintiffs’ lack of standing

3

to serve as representatives of the proposed class (Doc. 58).

4

On March 22, 2011, an amended final pretrial order was

5
6
7

issued. Doc. 74. The order set the deadline for filing motions in
limine for April 19, 2011, the deadline for responses was April

8

25, 2011, and the hearing on motions in limine was scheduled for

9

April 29, 2011.

10
11
12
13

On March 25, 2011, the United States filed a complaint
against Defendant to enforce the FHA. Case No. 1:11-cv-00511,
Doc. 1. The United States’ action seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, monetary damages for each person aggrieved by

14
15

Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, and civil penalties.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

III. LEGAL STANDARD
Consolidation of cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a), which provides:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or
trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it
may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such
orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
A district court has broad discretion to consolidate
actions. Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir.
2008); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir.
1987).

“The district court, in exercising its broad discretion
2

1

to order consolidation of actions presenting a common issue of

2

law or fact under Rule 42(a), weighs the saving of time and

3

effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience,

4
5
6
7

delay, or expense that it would cause.” Heune v. United States,
743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Considerations of convenience
and judicial economy “must yield to a paramount concern for a

8

fair and impartial trial.” Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d

9

1281, 1285 (2nd Cir. 1990).

10
11
12

IV.

ANALYSIS

The two lawsuits share common questions of law and fact. In

13

this action, Plaintiffs, two former female tenants of Defendant,

14

as lessor and owner of numerous rental properties, allege that

15

Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment

16

and discrimination in violation of the FHA and related state

17

laws. The United States’ action advances the same allegations

18
19
20
21

under the FHA against the same Defendant on behalf of persons
aggrieved by Defendant’s alleged conduct. Defendant is the sole
Defendant in both lawsuits, and both actions involve similar

22

questions of fact and law concerning Defendant’s alleged

23

liability under the FHA for his conduct toward his female

24

tenants. The United States’ pattern or practice action may

25

include individuals already identified in this lawsuit.

26
27
28

Consolidating the two lawsuits would save time, effort, and
duplication. There is likely substantial overlap of witnesses,
3

1

many with limited means and young children. Defendant has not

2

made any showing that consolidation would cause inconvenience,

3

expense, prejudice, or confusion. Consolidation, however, may

4

delay the resolution of this suit. This action was filed in

5
6
7

January 2010, an amended pretrial order was entered March 22,
2011, and a jury trial is scheduled May 10, 2011, but Defendant’s

8

attorney has recently withdrawn. The United States’ complaint was

9

filed March 25, 2011. Balancing the interests of judicial economy

10

against potential delay, Defendant will need to hire new counsel

11

to prepare for trial.

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation is GRANTED. The amended
final pretrial order (Doc. 74) is VACATED and the application to
set a new scheduling conference to extend the time to file
motions in limine is GRANTED.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation is GRANTED.
2. The amended final pretrial order is VACATED.
3. Plaintiffs’ application to extend the time to file motions
in limine is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed form of order consistent
with this memorandum decision within five (5) days of
electronic service of this memorandum decision.

27
28

4

1

SO ORDERED.

2

DATED: April 22, 2011

3

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5