Singh, et al v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, et al.

Filing 78

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/28/17: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in both the Singh and Rich cases; The parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file documents under only the lead case number; Lead Case: 1:15-cv-01497 DAD BAM; Member Case: 1:16-cv-01900 DAD BAM.(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JABIR SINGH et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

19

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC; CENTRAL CAL
TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.,
Defendants.
No. 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM
NICHOLAS E. RICH, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,

20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER CONSOLIDATING SINGH AND
RICH CASES

v.

17
18

No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC; CENTRAL CAL
TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.,
Defendants.

26
27
28
1

1
2
3

No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM
LATRINA PHILLIPS, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

4
v.

5
6
7

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC; MORGAN
SOUTHERN, INC.,
Defendants.

8
9

On March 24, 2017, counsel in the above-captioned cases (1) Jabir Singh et al. v.

10
11

Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM (“Singh

12

case”); and (2) Nicholas E. Rich v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:16-

13

cv-01900-DAD-BAM (“Rich case”) filed a stipulation seeking to consolidate the two related

14

cases. (Doc. No. 77 at 3–4.) Therein, the parties also represent that plaintiffs’ counsel in Latrina

15

Phillips v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM

16

(“Phillips case”) have not yet decided whether the Phillips case should be consolidated with the

17

Singh and Rich cases. (Id. at 3.)
Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the

18
19

court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or

20

all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to

21

avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising the court’s discretion, the court “weighs the

22

saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or

23

expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here,

24

the court finds that the Singh and Rich actions involve the same or similar parties, claims and

25

questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of

26

proceedings. Good cause appearing and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Case No. 1:15-cv-

27

01497-DAD-BAM and Case No. 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM will be consolidated.

28

/////
2

1

Accordingly,

2

1) The above-referenced related cases Singh and Rich are consolidated for all purposes,

3

including trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a);

4

2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in both the Singh and Rich cases;

5

3) Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file documents

6

under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the lead case

7

number followed by the member case number as follows:

8

Lead Case:

1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM

9

Member Case:

1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3