Raymond v. Martin

Filing 42

ORDER to the PARTIES to SHOW CAUSE Why the Actions Should Not Be Consolidated, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/19/2019. Show Cause Response due by 3/11/2019. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES RAYMOND,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
CONSOLIDATED

WARREN MARTIN,

15

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00307 JLT

Defendant.
_____________________________________

16
INGRID CRAWFORD SMITH, et al.,

Case No.: 1:18-cv-1526 - DAD - JLT

17
Plaintiffs,
18
v.
19
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
20
Defendants.
21
22

James Raymond filed his lawsuit in March 2018 and alleges that his son, Augustus Crawford,

23

was unlawfully killed by a Bakersfield Police Officer. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00307, Doc. 1) Mr.

24

Raymond seeks damages for himself and Mr. Crawford’s estate. Id. Soon after he filed the lawsuit,

25

Mr. Raymond, while ignoring the existence of A.C. and Crawford’s other parent, filed an affidavit

26

asserting that,

27

3.
[¶]

No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent's estate.

28
1

5.

1
2

6.

3
7.

4

I, James Raymond is the father the decedent's and lawful successor in interest as
defined by C.C.P. 377.11 and succeeds to the decedent's interest in the action or
proceeding.
This affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent's successor in
interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the
decedent's in the action or proceeding.
No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be
substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.

5
6

(Case No. 1:18-cv-00307, Doc. 4)
At the time, the defendant sought to join A.C. in the litigation according to the authority of

7
8

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.60-377.62. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00307, Doc. 17) Mr.

9

Raymond opposed the motion, contending that the only other possible heir was the decedent’s

10

girlfriend, whom Crawford did not support financially.1 (Case No. 1:18-cv-00307, Docs. 22-23) In

11

making this argument, it appears that Mr. Raymond took the position that Crawford was not A.C.’s

12

presumed father. In any event, the Court denied the motion to join A.C. (Case No. 1:18-cv-00307,

13

Doc. 28)
Ingrid Crawford Smith, Crawford’s mother, and A.C., by and through guardian ad litem

14
15

Tyshika Williams, initiated another action by filing a complaint in November 2018. (Case No. 1:18-

16

cv-01526, Doc. 1) Like Raymond, they seek their own damages and seek to recover damages on

17

behalf of the estate. Id. Again, like Raymond, Ms. Crawford Smith ignores the existence of

18

Crawford’s other parent and attests,

20

2.
[¶¶]
5.

21

6.

19

22

I am the mother of decedent AGUSTUS2 JOSHUA CRAWFORD.
No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of AUGUSTUS
JOSHUA CRAWFORD'S estate.
No other person than myself, A. C. by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Tyshika
Williams, A. C. by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Bree Allen3 have a superior
right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the
pending action or proceeding.

23
24
25
26

Once again, he ignored the existence of Crawford’s other parent.
The Court presumes the spelling of Mr. Crawford’s name is a typographical error given his named is spelled differently in
most other filings.
3
The Court is at a loss to understand the apparent claim that A.C. is represented by two guardians ad litem; this is
incorrect. The Court has appointed only Ms. Williams to act for A.C. and has no idea who Ms. Allen is or the extent to
which she believes she is involved in this litigation.
1
2

27
28

2

1

(Case No. 1:18-cv-01526, Doc. 12) In this latest action, the parties name the chief of police and the

2

City of Bakersfield in addition to Warren Martin, who was named in Raymond’s lawsuit. Compare

3

(Case No. 1:18-cv-00307, Docs. 1, 15 with Case No. 1:18-cv-01526, Doc. 1) Therefore, the Court

4

ORDERS:

5
6

1.

No later than March 11, 2019, the parties in both cases SHALL show cause in

writing why the actions should not be consolidated.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 19, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3