Phelps v. Van Bibber

Filing 6

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/10/2014. LEAD CASE is 1:14-cv-00523-LJO-GSA; Defendant, Dana Michael Bridges added; MEMBER CASE is 1:14-cv-646-LJO-GSA; MEMBER CASE CLOSED; all future filing to be made in LEAD CASE. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL PHELPS, 12 1:14-cv-523 LJO-GSA Plaintiff, 13 ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 14 v. 15 ELIZABETH VAN BIBBER, 16 Defendant. 17 _______________________________ 1:14-cv-646 LJO-GSA 18 19 DANIEL PHELPS, ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 DANA MICHAEL BRIDGES, 23 24 Defendant 25 26 Plaintiff, Daniel Phelps filed a complaint in case number 1:14-cv-523 LJO-GSA on April 14, 27 2014, and another complaint in case number 1:14-cv-646 on May 1, 2014. Both of the cases involve 28 1 1 allegations against Elizabeth Van Bibber, an insurance agent for Progressive Insurance Company and 2 contend that she is illegally filing restraining orders against Plaintiff by committing perjury. 3 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 5 6 7 (a)(2). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 8 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to consolidate cases, a court should balance the 9 interest of judicial convenience against “any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would 10 11 cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F. 2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). These actions contain identical allegations involving the same defendant. Therefore, the 12 Court finds that consolidation will aid in judicial efficiency and that consolidation will not cause 13 14 15 16 delay, confusion, or prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to consolidate Phelps v. Van Bibber, No. 1:14-cv-523- 17 18 LJO-GSA and Phelps v. Bridges, No. 1:14-cv-646 LJO- GSA; 2. Phelps v. Elizabeth Van Bibber, No. 1:14-cv-523-LJO-GSA shall be designated as the 19 lead case; and 20 3. The parties are instructed to file all documents in Phelps v. Elizabeth Van Bibber, No. 21 1:14-cv-523 LJO-GSA. Documents not filed in the lead case may not be considered. 22 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?