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)

Download PDF
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

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?