Muhammad v. Garrett

Filing 36

ORDER Consolidating the Actions, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/18/13. Member Case (1:12-cv-02025-AWI-JLT) Closed. All Future Filings to be made in this Lead Case. Bakersfield City Police Department and City of Bakersfield added. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KAREEM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
CHAD GARRETT,
Defendant.

14

) Case No.: 1:12-cv-01199 - AWI - JLT
)
)
) ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS
)
)
)
)
)

15
16

KAREEM MUHAMMAD,

17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD GARRETT, et al.,
Defendants.

) Case No.: 1:12-cv-02025 - AWI - JLT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On October 2, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the above-entitled actions

23

should not be consolidated. Defendant responded that he “has no opposition to the consolidation of this

24

mater for all purposes.” Plaintiff did not file a response to the Court’s order.

25

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court may consolidate actions involving

26

a common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of judicial

27

economy and convenience. The Ninth Circuit explained that the Court “has broad discretion under this

28

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. United States District
1

1

Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to

2

consolidate actions, the Court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay,

3

confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop,

4

Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

5

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations in the above-captioned actions are similar, if not identical. The

6

Court anticipates little risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice. Plaintiff is more likely to be afforded

7

timely relief through consolidation. In addition, consolidation of the actions would maximize the

8

Court’s scarce resources. Consequently, consolidation is appropriate . See Pierce v. County of Orange,

9

526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008).

10

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11

1.

12
13

This action SHALL be consolidated with Case No. 12-cv-2025-AWI-JLT for all
purposes, including trial; and

2.

14

This action SHALL be the lead case, and the parties are instructed to file all documents
in this action, Case No. 12-cv-01199-AWI-JLT.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 18, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2