Morgret v. Applus Technologies, INC. et al

Filing 28

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Actions Should Not Be Consolidated, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/19/2014. Show Cause Response due by 8/29/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY MORGRET,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND
INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.,

15
Defendant.
16
17

TODD MOORE,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20

v.
VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND
INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.,

21
Defendant.
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)_

Case Nos.: 1:14-cv-01801 - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED

CASE NO.: 1:14-cv-01875 - JLT

23
24

Plaintiffs Timothy Morgret and Todd Moore bring similar class claims against Defendant

25

Valley Industrial X-Ray and Inspection Services, Inc., in separate cases of action before this Court:

26

Case No. 1:14-cv-01801-JLT and Case No. 1:14-cv-01875-JLT. It appears that the class and collective

27

claims raised in the Morgret matter are broader such to encompass those claims raised in the Moore

28

matter. Further, the cases involve similar claims and questions of fact. Indeed, both Morgret and
1

1

Moore seek to represent classes of Defendant’s current and/or former employees.

2

Therefore, the Court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing, why the actions should

3

not be consolidated for all purposes, including class certification and trial. The parties SHALL file

4

briefs, no more than five pages in length, addressing the issue no later than August 29, 2014.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 19, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2