Raymond v. Martin

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOINHEIRS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/26/2021(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES RAYMOND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
WARREN MARTIN,

15

Defendant.

16
17

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOIN
HEIRS
No.: 1:18-cv-1526-DAD-JLT (Doc. No. 17)
No.: 1:19-cv-01302-DAD-JLT (Doc. No 10.)

INGRID CRAWFORD SMITH, et al.,

18

Plaintiffs,

19
20

Lead No. 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT

v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

21

Defendants.

22
23

A.J.C.,
Plaintiff,

24
25
26
27

v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

28
1

1

The three above-listed actions are brought by the purported heirs of decedent August

2

Joshua Crawford, an individual that plaintiffs claim was fatally shot by Bakersfield officers on

3

November 4, 2017. (Crawford Smith v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:18-cv-01526-DAD-JLT (E.D.

4

Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (“Crawford Smith”), Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 14–18; A.J.C. v. City of Bakersfield,

5

No. 1:19-cv-01302-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) (“A.J.C.”), Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 13–17.) On

6

March 14, 2019 and January 22, 2020, the actions were consolidated for all purposes, including

7

trial, by order of the assigned magistrate judge. (Crawford Smith, Doc. No. 26; A.J.C., Doc. No.

8

20.)

9

Pending before the court are two motions to join all heirs of decedent Augustus Joshua

10

Crawford brought by defendants City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield Police Department, Chief Lyle

11

Martin, and Warren Martin filed on March 5, 2019 and November 26, 2019.1 (Crawford Smith,

12

Doc. No. 17; A.J.C., Doc. No. 10.) On April 2, 2019, plaintiffs Ingrid Crawford Smith and A.C.

13

filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. (Crawford Smith, Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff

14

A.J.C failed to respond, and the time to do so has long since passed. (A.J.C., Doc. No. 16.)

15

Defendant maintains that all heirs of decedent Augustus Joshua Crawford must be joined

16

to this suit because California law permits only one wrongful death action to be pursued.

17

(Crawford Smith, Doc. No. 17-1 at 5–8; A.J.C., Doc. No. 10-1 at 5–8.) The court previously

18

denied without prejudice a nearly identical motion for joinder brought by defendant Warren

19

Martin in the lead case finding that neither mandatory nor permissive joinder was warranted at

20

that time because, inter alia, only one of the known heirs had filed a claim, and that action did not

21

contain a state law wrongful death claim. See Raymond v. Martin, No. 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT,

22

2018 WL 4560686, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2018). Subsequently, two additional actions were

23

filed by alleged heirs of decedent Augustus Joshua Crawford, which brought claims for wrongful

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

Defendants Chief Lyle Martin and Warren Martin are parties only to the motion filed in
Crawford Smith v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:18-cv-01526-DAD-JLT.
2

1

death under California state law. While these motions have been pending,2 all three actions

2

brought by purported heirs of decedent Augustus Joshua Crawford were consolidated. (Crawford

3

Smith, Doc. No. 26; A.J.C., Doc. No. 20.) Given the current consolidated posture of the actions,

4

the court finds no further action is necessary and the two pending motions for joinder are denied

5

as having been rendered moot.

6

CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons stated above,

8

1. The motion to join heirs (Doc. No. 17) filed in Crawford Smith v. City of Bakersfield,

9

No. 1:18-cv-01526-DAD-JLT, and the motion to join heirs (Doc. No. 10) filed in

10

A.J.C. v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:19-cv-01302-DAD-JLT, are denied as moot; and

11

2. The member cases, Crawford Smith v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:18-cv-01526-DAD-

12

JLT, and A.J.C. v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:19-cv-01302-DAD-JLT, are to remain

13

administratively closed while the consolidated action proceeds as Raymond v. Martin,

14

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

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

February 26, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The court apologizes to the parties and to counsel for the court’s lengthy delay in issuing this
order. This court’s overwhelming caseload has been well publicized and the long-standing lack
of judicial resources in this district has reached crisis proportion. Unfortunately, that situation
sometimes results in a submitted matter being overlooked for a period of time and that occurred
with respect to this motion.
3