(PC) Ashker v. Beard, et al.

Filing 61

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TODD ASHKER,

12

Case No. 1:21-cv-01611-HBK
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES

v.
(Doc. No. No. 63)

14

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case Nos. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG and
1:21-cv-01611-HBK

17
18

On November 4, 2021, the Northern District of California severed Plaintiff Todd Ashker’s

19

claims against Defendants Allison, Prelip, Paris, and Moak and transferred them to this District

20

pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and joint motion to transfer these claims. (Doc. No. 61, see

21

also Doc. Nos. 59, 60). On November 16, 2021, Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 42 to consolidate this action with Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG, asserting that

23

the actions involve common questions of fact and noting that the parties agreed in their stipulation

24

that these claims should be litigated in Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG.1 (Doc. No. 63).

25

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the

26
27
28

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.
1

1

1

court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or

2

all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to

3

avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of

4

time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it

5

would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the Court finds

6

that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact

7

or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Thus,

8

good cause exists to grant the motion to consolidate these cases.2

9

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

10

1.

Defendants’ motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 63) is GRANTED;

11

2.

The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial,

12

pursuant to Rule 42(a);

13

3.

14

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced
cases;

15

4.

Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file

16

documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the

17

lead case number followed by the member case number as follows:

18

Lead Case:

1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG

19

Member Case:

1:21-cv-01611-HBK

20
21

Dated:

November 19, 2021
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

“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).
2

2