Smith et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 109

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES: Lead Case is 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB, Member Case 1:14-cv-01559-LJO-MJS; Plaintiffs Added: Corey Campbell, Robert Conley, Sinohe Hercules, Juan Martinez, Juan Penalva, Robert Preston, John Ruggles, Willie Steels and Solomon Vasquez, represented by Benjamin L. Pavone added; MEMBER CASE CLOSED; all future filings to be made in Lead Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/21/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

COREY CAMPBELL, et al.,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Case No. 1:14-cv-01559-LJO-MJS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTION
WITH CASE NUMBER 1:14-CV-00060LJO-SAB
(ECF No. 9)

Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiffs are present and former state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights

20 action filed on October 5, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2014,
21 plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action into a similar and more comprehensive
22 case, Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB. (ECF No. 9.)
23
24

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the
claims and issues contain common aspects of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a);

25
E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998). In determining whether to
26
27

consolidate cases, “a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the

28 potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Southwest
1

1 Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Smith
2 is proceeding on the claim that state officials were deliberately indifferent to a
3

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

4
Fever. The defendants are all alleged to have participated in implementing or continuing
5
6

the same policy of inaction despite their knowledge of the risk. Moving counsel also

7 represents plaintiffs in Smith and contends that claims in this action are consistent with
8 the allegations set forth in Smith.
9

The discovery issues will be identical in each case. Consolidating these actions

10 will avoid unnecessary costs incurred due to identical discovery and motion practice
11
occurring in separate actions. Common questions of law and fact appear to exist in
12
these actions. It is in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by
13
consolidating these actions for all pretrial purposes. Consolidation will conserve judicial
14
15 resources and the resources of the parties by addressing identical issues in a single
16 case. Resolution of these actions will involve overlapping facts and witnesses as to the
17 claims raised. It serves judicial economy to “avoid the inefficiency of separate trials
18
19

involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence.” E.E.O.C., 135 F.3d at 551.
At this point in the litigation, plaintiffs in Smith have been granted the opportunity

20
21

to file a consolidated complaint. No defendants have appeared in this action.

22 Consolidation of these actions will not cause delay, but will actually expedite litigation by
23 allowing plaintiffs to be included in the consolidated complaint which can be addressed
24 by one responsive pleading.
25
26

There is no risk of confusion due to the consolidation of these actions, as the
claims will be identical as to each named defendant. Similarly, the evidence and issues

27
will be the same in each case for each defendant. Finally, the Court can discern no
28
2

1 prejudice to any of the parties by consolidating these actions. Consolidation will avoid
2 the danger of having inconsistent verdicts in the related cases. The factors considered
3

weigh in favor of consolidating these actions for all purposes.

4
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
6

1.

Schwarzenegger, 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB;

7
8

2.

9
10

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

Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB shall be designated
as the lead case;

3.

11

A consolidated complaint or amendment thereto, merging all plaintiffs into
one case, shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days following entry of this

12
Order; and
13
14

4.

All scheduled dates in this case are vacated and the Clerk’s Office shall
administratively close it.

15
16

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

Dated:

October 21, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3