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

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED AND MERGED INTO A SINGLE CASE, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/20/2018. (Kusamura, W)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING, deceased though his successor in interest Anthony Golding, and ANTHONY GOLDING, Plaintiffs 9 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED AND MERGED INTO A SINGLE CASE v. 10 11 CASE No. 1:18-CV-0332 AWI SKO JERRY DYER, et al., Defendants 12 13 14 15 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. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: “If actions before the court involve a 16 17 common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at 18 issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary 19 cost or delay.” A district court has broad discretion to determine whether and to what extent 20 consolidation is appropriate. See Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th 21 Cir. 2016); Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 22 (9th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether to consolidate, a court should balance the interest of judicial 23 convenience against “any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United 24 States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 25 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). “[T]he law is clear that an act of consolidation does not 26 affect any of the substantive rights of the parties.” J.G. Link & Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 470 27 F.2d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 1972); see also Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 28 2002). 1 Here, this case and the Fresno Case are extremely similar. Both cases involve the death of 2 Isiah Murrietta-Golding during an interaction with City of Fresno Police Officer Villalvazo. In 3 both cases, the City of Fresno, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, and Officer Villalvazo are the 4 named defendants. Furthermore, the complaints in both cases are 22 pages and are materially 5 identical. The key differences between the two cases appear to be the attorneys involved and the 6 plaintiffs. In this case, the plaintiff is the decedent’s father, both individually and as a successor in 7 interest. In the Fresno case, the plaintiff is the decedent’s mother, both individually and as 8 successor in interest. Given the similarity between these cases, it appears that consolidating and 9 merging these cases into one case for all purposes may be appropriate. Cf. Davis v. Roane Cnty., 10 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164309 *6-*7 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2014); Intertex, Inc. v. Dri-Eaz Prods., 11 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82917, *9-*11 (W.D. Wash. June 11, 2013); Bejarano v. Allison, 2011 12 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 96459, *2-*3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011). 13 Before the Court makes any decisions or issues any orders with respect to consolidation, it 14 is appropriate to hear from the parties. Therefore, the Court will allow the parties to show cause 15 why this case and the Fresno Case should not be consolidated and merged into one case for all 16 purposes. 17 18 ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within 10 days of service of this order, the 19 parties may show cause in writing why this case should not be consolidated and merged into one 20 case with Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno, 1:18-CV-0314 AWI SKO. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?