Murrietta-Golding et al v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 17

ORDER consolidating (1:18-cv-00332-AWI-SKO) and merging matter into case signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/5/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING,
deceased though his successor in interest
Anthony Golding, and ANTHONY
GOLDING,
Plaintiffs

13
14
15
16

CASE No. 1:18-CV-0332 AWI SKO
ORDER CONSOLIDATING AND
MERGING MATTER INTO CASE NO.
18-CV-0314 AWI SKO

v.
JERRY DYER, et al.,
Defendants

17
18
19
20

On April 19, 2018, this matter was related to Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno, 1:18CV-0314 AWI SKO (“Fresno Case”) and reassigned to the undersigned.
On April 20, 2018, the parties were ordered to show cause why this case should not be

21

consolidated and merged into a single case, along with the Fresno Case. See Doc. No. 9. An

22

order to show cause was also issued in the Fresno Case. See Doc. No. 10 in Fresno Case. In this

23

case, no party responded. In the Fresno Case, the Plaintiffs responded that they were in agreement

24

that the cases should be consolidated and merged. See Doc. No. 15 in Fresno Case.

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: “If actions before the court involve a

26

common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at

27

issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary

28

cost or delay.” A district court has broad discretion to determine whether and to what extent

1

consolidation is appropriate. See Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th

2

Cir. 2016); Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777

3

(9th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether to consolidate, a court should balance the interest of judicial

4

convenience against “any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United

5

States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495

6

F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). “[T]he law is clear that an act of consolidation does not

7

affect any of the substantive rights of the parties.” J.G. Link & Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 470

8

F.2d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 1972); see also Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1034-35 (9th Cir.

9

2002).

10

Here, this case and the Fresno Case are extremely similar as they both involve the death of

11

Isiah Murrietta-Golding during an interaction with City of Fresno Police Officer Villalvazo.

12

Consolidating these related cases would conserve judicial resources and there is no apparent

13

inconvenience, delay, or expense that would result from consolidation. In the absence of an

14

opposition, there is no good reason not to consolidate these actions for all purposes. Under these

15

circumstances, consolidating and merging these cases for all purposes into one case would be

16

efficient. See Davis v. Roane Cnty., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164309 *6-*7 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 21,

17

2014); Intertex, Inc. v. Dri-Eaz Prods., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82917, *9-*11 (W.D. Wash. June

18

11, 2013); Bejarano v. Allison, 2011 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 96459, *2-*3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011).

19

Therefore, the Court will consolidate and merge this case and the Fresno Case.

20
21
ORDER

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23
24

1.

with Murrietta-Golding v. Dyer,1:18-CV-0332 AWI SKO for all purposes;

25
26
27

The Clerk shall consolidate Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno, 1:18-CV-0314 AWI SKO

2.

All future filings and correspondences shall use case number 1:18-CV-0314 AWI SKO;

3.

The Clerk shall move Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 from the docket of 1:18-CV-0332 AWI
SKO over to the docket of 1:18-CV-0314 AWI SKO;

28
2

1

4.

SKO;1 and

2
3

The Clerk shall administratively close Murrietta-Golding v. Dyer,1:18-CV-0332 AWI

5.

The Clerk shall file a copy of this order in Case No. 1: 18-CV-0314 AWI SLO.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that administratively closing this case has no impact whatsoever on the merits.

3