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)

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