Morrow v. Schwarzenegger et al
Filing
14
ORDER to show cause why this action should not be consolidated with Smith vs Schwarzenegger and continuing Initial Scheduling Conference to 11/25/2014. Response due within 14 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/15/2014. (Hernandez, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL MORROW,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01395-LJO-SAB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH
SMITH V. SCHWARZENEGGER AND
CONTINUING INITIAL SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE TO NOVEMBER 25, 2014 AT
10:00 A.M.
Defendants.
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
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.) On September 10, 2014, this
19
action was related to Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB and an initial
20
scheduling conference was set for October 10, 2014 to coordinate this action with Smith. On
21
September 15, 2014, an order issued vacating the September 10, 2014 date in Smith and setting a
22
status conference on November 25, 2014.
23
The Court has reviewed this action and finds that the complaint is substantially identical
24
to the complaint that was filed in Smith. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides that “[i]f
25
actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate
26
the actions. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a)(2). “The district court has broad discretion under this rule
27
to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for
28
Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989).
1
1
The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay where the claims and
2
issues contain common aspects of law or fact. E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th
3
Cir. 1998). In determining whether to consolidate cases, “a court weighs the interest of judicial
4
convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.”
5
Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
6
The complaint in this action names the same defendants, asserts the same claims, and
7
contains the same factual allegations as those proceeding in the consolidated action. Common
8
questions of law and fact unquestionably exist in these actions and the Court finds that it would
9
be in the interest of judicial economy to consolidate this action with Smith.
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1.
The initial scheduling conference set for October 10, 2014 at 10:00 is VACATED;
12
2.
A status conference is set for November 25, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9;
13
and
14
3.
Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show
15
cause in writing why this action should not be consolidated with Smith, et al. v.
16
Schwarzeneggar, et al., 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB.
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 15, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?