Raymond v. Martin

Filing 44

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, Reassigning the Consolidated Matter and Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference in the Consolidated Action signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/13/2019. LEAD CASE: 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT. Member Case Closed: 1:18-cv-01526-DAD-JLT. Scheduling Conference set for 5/6/2019 at 09:00 AM in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Jessen, A)

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

WARREN MARTIN,

15

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00307 JLT
ORDER CONSOLIDATING THESE ACTIONS,
REASSIGNING THE CONSOLIDATED MATTER
AND SETTING THE MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IN THE
CONSOLIDATED ACTION

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

In these actions, the plaintiffs bring similar claims and they present similar questions of fact and

23

law. The Court ordered the parties to show cause why the actions should not be consolidated and the

24

parties except Mr. Raymond have responded. The plaintiffs in the Crawford-Smith matter and the

25

defendants do not oppose consolidation.

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows the Court to consolidate actions involving a

27

common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of judicial

28

economy and convenience. The Ninth Circuit explained that the Court “has broad discretion under this
1

1

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. United States District

2

Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to

3

consolidate actions, the Court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay,

4

confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop,

5

Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

6

Due to the similarity of the actions, consolidation serves the purposes of minimizing judicial

7

resources, and the Court anticipates little risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice if the matters are

8

consolidated. Consequently, consolidation is appropriate. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d

9

1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, the Court ORDERS:

10

1.

The orders to show cause are DISCHARGED;

11

2.

These actions SHALL be consolidated for all purposes, including trial; and

12

3.

As the earlier filed case, the parties are instructed that all future filings SHALL use the

13

caption set forth above in the Raymond. Despite that the parties in Raymond have consented to

14

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, because the plaintiffs in the Crawford-Smith matter have not, the

15

consolidated matter is REASSIGNED to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and all future case filings

16

SHALL use case number 1:18-cv-00307 DAD JLT;

17

4.

The case schedule issued in Raymond is VACATED, and the consolidated matter will

18

be rescheduled at a scheduling conference on May 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. The parties need not respond

19

to any outstanding written discovery, unless they agree otherwise.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 13, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2