Tandel v. County of Sacramento, et al.

Filing 62

ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED CASES signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/3/2011 GRANTING 51 Defendants Motion to Consolidate Cases with 2:11-CV-353 MCE GGH; All pending dates in both actions are hereby VACATED; The parties are directed to submit a Joint Status Report in accordance with the requirements outlined within the Court's 3/31/2011 Order Requiring Joint Status Report in Case No. 2:11-CV-353-MCE-GGH(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SANDIPKUMAR TANDEL,

12
13

No. 2:11-cv-00353-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,
ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED
CASES

v.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SHERIFF
JOHN McGINEESS, individually
and in his official capacity,
ANN MARIE BOYLAN, the chief of
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES
in her individual and official
capacity, ASA HAMBLY MD,
individually and in her
official capacity as Acting
Medical Director of Sacramento
County Jail, KRONER RN,
FELICIANO NP, JAMES AUSTIN NP,
BAUER MD, SOKOLOV MD, GARVEY
MD, SOTAK, KO MD, SAHBA MD, in
their individual capacities,
and OFFICER WILSON in his
individual and official
capacity, and DEFENDANT DOES
1-50 [Officer Does 1-15,
Medical Does 16-35, Custodial
Staff Supervisor Does 36-40,
Medical Staff Supervisor Does
41-50] in their official and
individual capacities,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

28
1

1

SANDIPKUMAR TANDEL,

2

Plaintiff,

3
4

No. 2:09-cv-00842-MCE-GGH

v.

9

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SHERIFF
JOHN McGINEESS, individually
and in his official capacity
as Sacramento County Sheriff,
ANN MARIE BOYLAN, individually
and in her official capacty as
Chief of Sacramento County Jail
Correctional Health Services,
Dr. SMITH M.D., Dr. HAMBLY M.D.,
And Dr. HOROWITZ M.C. and DOES
1-XXX,

10

Defendants.

11

______________________________/

5
6
7
8

12
13

By Order dated March 31, 2011, these cases were deemed

14

related in accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 123(a).

15

Counsel for Defendant in both cases, the County of Sacramento,

16

has now moved to consolidate the above numbered and entitled

17

lawsuits, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), into

18

a single action.

19

follows:

20

Rule 42(a) provides in pertinent part as

23

“when actions involving a common question of law or
fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint
hearing or trial of any or all of the matters in issue
in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay.”

24

The purpose of consolidation under Rule 42(a), where cases share

25

such common questions of law or fact, is to enhance trial

26

court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of

27

proceedings and effort.

28

///

21
22

2

1

See, e.g., Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233, 235-36 (8th

2

Cir. 1994); E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.

3

1998). Consolidation of appropriate cases also guards against the

4

risk of inconsistent adjudications.

5

135 F.3d at 550-51.

6

E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp.,

Factually, both cases assert violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

7

stemming from allegedly inadequate medical care received by

8

Plaintiff while incarcerated at the Sacramento County Main Jail.

9

Although two separate period of incarcerations are implicated by

10

the two lawsuits, they both identify purported inadequacies in

11

the care Plaintiff received for a rare virulent autoimmune

12

disorder, Neuromyelitis Optica.

13

aside from Sacramento County itself, are similar although not

14

identical.

15

that the cases are related in the sense that they involve similar

16

questions of fact and of law.

17

instances where numerous lawsuits arise from the same common

18

nucleus of operative facts.

19

Investment Real Estate Trust, 2008 WL 4712759, * 1-2 (E.D. Cal.,

20

Oct. 23, 2009) (consolidation appropriate where actions presented

21

similar factual issues).

22

considerations of judicial convenience in this regard against any

23

potential for delay, confusion and/or prejudice caused by

24

consolidation.

25

720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

26

///

27

///

28

///

The Defendants in both cases,

As indicated above, the Court has already determined

Consolidation may be proper in

See Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western

The Court must nonetheless weigh

Southwest Marine, Inc. v. AAA Machine Shop, Inc.,

3

1

Plaintiff has not opposed the County of Sacramento’s

2

consolidation request.

3

having appeared in these actions filed any opposition.

4

counsel for Defendants Sokolov and Garvey have expressed concern

5

about the logistics of consolidation should the Scheduling Order

6

applicable to the earlier filed case remain in effect, as set

7

forth below the current Scheduling Order in Case No. 2:09-cv-

8

0842-MCE-GGH will be vacated.

9

dispute that consolidation is appropriate.

10

Nor have counsel for any other Defendants
While

Accordingly there appears no

Given that consensus, and following the Court’s own

11

determination that consolidation will promote clarity, efficiency

12

and the avoidance of confusion and prejudice given the above-

13

enumerated common nucleus of operative facts, Defendant County of

14

Sacramento’s Motion to Consolidate (filed as ECF No. 51 in Case

15

No. 2:09-cv-00842-MCE-GGH, and ECF No. 9 in Case No. 2:11-cv-

16

00353-MCE-GGH) is hereby GRANTED.1

17

may order consolidation under those circumstances.

18

v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990).

19

The Court, in its discretion,
See Johnson

Both actions are consequently consolidated for all purposes,

20

including trial.

The lead case in this consolidated action shall

21

be Tandel v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-

22

00353-MCE-GGH.

23

vacated.

24

///

25

///

All pending dates in both actions are hereby

26
27
28

1

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance,
this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral
argument. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).
4

1

The parties are directed to submit a Joint Status Report in

2

accordance with the requirements outlined within the Court’s

3

March 31, 2011 Order Requiring Joint Status Report in Case No.

4

2:11-cv-00353-MCE-GGH.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: May 3, 2011

7
8
9

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5