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

Filing 92

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/13/17. Lead Case is 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM; Member Cases 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM and 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM are CLOSED. All future filings to be filed in this lead case. (Marrujo, C)

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 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 June 12, 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”); (2) Nicholas E. Rich v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-

13

01900-DAD-BAM (“Rich case”); (3) Latrina Phillips; et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services,

14

LLC; et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM (“Phillips case”) filed a stipulation seeking to

15

consolidate the third related case, the Phillips case, with the two previously related and

16

consolidated cases. (Doc. No. 88 at 3–4.)
Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

duplication of proceedings. Good cause appearing and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Case

26

No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM will be consolidated with the previously consolidated cases: Case

27

No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM and Case No. 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM.

28

/////
2

1

Accordingly,

2

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

3
4

purposes, including trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a);
2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in the Singh, Rich, and Phillips

5

cases;

6

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

7

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

8

number followed by the member case number as follows:

9

Lead Case:

1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM

10

Member Case:

1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM

11

Member Case:

1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 13, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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