(PC) Ashker v. Beard, et al.
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 11/19/2021. Lead Case is 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG (PC) ; Member Case is 1:21-cv-01611-HBK (PC). MEMBER CASE CLOSED; all future filings to be made in Lead Case. (Rivera, O)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:21-cv-01611-HBK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
(Doc. No. No. 63)
KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,
Case Nos. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG and
On November 4, 2021, the Northern District of California severed Plaintiff Todd Ashker’s
claims against Defendants Allison, Prelip, Paris, and Moak and transferred them to this District
pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and joint motion to transfer these claims. (Doc. No. 61, see
also Doc. Nos. 59, 60). On November 16, 2021, Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42 to consolidate this action with Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG, asserting that
the actions involve common questions of fact and noting that the parties agreed in their stipulation
that these claims should be litigated in Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG.1 (Doc. No. 63).
Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the
Because Plaintiff already agreed in the parties’ stipulation that these claims should be litigated in Case
No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG, the Court finds it unnecessary to await any potential opposition to the
motion to consolidate.
court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or
all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to
avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of
time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it
would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the Court finds
that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact
or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Thus,
good cause exists to grant the motion to consolidate these cases.2
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Defendants’ motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 63) is GRANTED;
The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial,
pursuant to Rule 42(a);
The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced
Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file
documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the
lead case number followed by the member case number as follows:
November 19, 2021
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
“Motions to consolidate are considered non-dispositive and are within the pre-trial authority of the
magistrate judge.” Jackson v. Berkey, No. 3:19-cv-06101-BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 1974247, at *2 (W.D.
Wash. Apr. 24, 2020).
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?