Smith et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 111

ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTION, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/14: The Clerk's Office is directed to consolidate this action with Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060 LJO SAB; and The Clerk's Office is directed to close Member Case No. 1:14-cv-01697 LJO DLB; ALL FUTURE FILINGS TO BE MADE IN LEAD CASE. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GEORGE LEWIS,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:14-cv-0697-LJO-DLB
ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTION

v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On October 28, 2014, George Lewis filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

16

1983 alleging failure to provide medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff

17

alos filed a notice of related case and request to consolidate this action with Smith v.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

identical discovery and motion practice occurring in separate actions.

27

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

28

It is in the interest of judicial economy to avoid duplication by consolidating these actions
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

F.3d at 551.

6

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

7

file a consolidated complaint. Plaintiff in this action has not filed an amended complaint and no

8

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

9

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

10

consolidated complaint which can be addressed by one responsive pleading.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

these actions for all purposes.

17

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19
20

The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate this action with Smith v.
Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB; and

2..

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

21
22
23

SO ORDERED
Dated: October 30, 2014
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2