Smith et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 106

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE: Lead Case is 1:14-cv-00060 LJO SAB, Member Case is 1:14-cv-1395 LJO SAB; MEMBER CASE CLOSED; all Future Filings to be made in Lead Case signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/07/2014.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL MORROW,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-01395-LJO-SAB
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND CONSOLIDATING ACTION

v.
(ECF No. 14)

14
15

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On September 6, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Morrow filed this action alleging deliberate

18

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) This action was related to

19

Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB on September 11, 2014. On September

20

15, 2014, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen why this action should

21

not be consolidated with Smith. More than fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has not

22

responded to the order to show course.

23

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the claims and

24

issues contain common aspects of law or fact. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th

25

Cir. 1998). In determining whether to consolidate cases, “a court weighs the interest of judicial

26

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.”

27

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

28

Smith is proceeding on the claim that state officials were deliberately indifferent to the
1

1

substantial risk of harm by exposing the named plaintiffs to the risk of contracting Valley Fever.

2

The defendants are all alleged to have participated in implementing or continuing the same policy

3

of inaction despite their knowledge of the risk.

4

The discovery issues in these actions for those defendants named in the complaints will be

5

identical in each case. Consolidating these actions will avoid unnecessary costs incurred due to

6

identical discovery and motion practice occurring in separate actions.

7

Common questions of law and fact appear to exist in these actions.

8

It is in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by consolidating these actions

9

for all pretrial purposes. Consolidation will conserve judicial resources and the resources of the

10

parties by addressing identical issues in a single case. Resolution of these actions will involve

11

overlapping facts and witnesses as to the claims raised. It serves judicial economy to “avoid the

12

inefficiency of separate trials involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence.” E.E.O.C., 135

13

F.3d at 551.

14

At this point in the litigation, the plaintiffs in Smith have been granted the opportunity to

15

file a consolidated complaint. Plaintiff filed this action on September 6, 2014, and no defendants

16

have appeared in the action. Consolidation of these actions will not cause a delay, but will

17

actually expedite the litigation in this action by allowing Plaintiff to be included in the

18

consolidated complaint which can be addressed by one responsive pleading.

19

There is no risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the claims will

20

be identical as to each named defendant. Similarly, the evidence and issues will be the same in

21

each case for each defendant. Finally, the Court can discern no prejudice to any of the parties by

22

consolidating these actions and consolidating these actions will avoid the danger of having

23

inconsistent verdicts in the related cases. The factors considered weigh in favor of consolidating

24

these actions for all purposes.

25

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

The order to show cause filed September 15, 2014 is discharged;

27

2.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate this action with Smith v.

28

Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB;
2

1

3.

2

Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB shall be designated as the
lead case; and

3

4.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to close the this action.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 7, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3