Smith et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 101

ORDER re Stipulation on Consolidation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/24/2014. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al.,

12
13

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB
ORDER RE: STIPULATION ON
CONSOLIDATION

v.
(ECF No. 98)

14

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties as follows:

18

(1)

The Court has ordered that Smith v. Schwarzenegger, Beagle v. Schwarzenegger,

19

Abukar v. Schwarzenegger, and Adams v. Schwarzenegger be consolidated and that Plaintiffs’

20

counsel file a single consolidated complaint by December 1, 2014. (Order Consolid. Related

21

Cases, ECF No. 82; Order Granting Ext. of Time, ECF No. 91.)

22
23
24

(2)

Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to file similar claims on behalf of inmates who are not

parties to the existing consolidated actions.
(3)

Because of the common issues and defendants in the anticipated additional claims,

25

as represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the parties believe that the purpose and intent of the Court’s

26

order requiring a single consolidated complaint would be served by permitting Plaintiffs to

27

include additional inmate claimants in their upcoming consolidated complaint that they would

28

have otherwise named in a separate but related lawsuit.
1

1

(4)

Defendants do not waive any defenses to the consolidated complaint, including as

2

to any statutes of limitations, and any newly added plaintiffs’ claims will not relate back to the

3

earlier-filed pleadings.

4

(5)

Based on a hearing held between the parties and Court on September 15, 2014 to

5

address certain procedural matters, the parties’ understanding is that the Court’s Order of August

6

28, 2014 striking the Second Amended Smith Complaint (Case No.1:14-cv-60) and the First

7

Amended Beagle Complaint (Case No. 1:14-cv-430), as well as the closing of the ECF files for

8

Abukar (Case No. 1:14-cv-816) and Adams (1:14-cv-1226) were for the purpose of case

9

administration in order to facilitate the directive to file a consolidated complaint and that the

10

Court did not intend by its actions to dismiss any cases or alter the limitations period applicable to

11

these cases by striking pleadings, ordering consolidated complaints or closing ECF files.

12
13

(6)

Defendants shall have thirty days after service of the consolidated complaint to file

their responsive pleading.

14

The stipulation is acknowledged and accepted and so Ordered.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 24, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2