Northern California River Watch v. Golden Technology Company et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED Show Cause Response due by 12/18/2009.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 9, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, ARNOLD CARSTON, LARRY CARRILLO, FRANCINE CLAYTON, DOES 1-30, Inclusive, Defendants. / No. C 09-02581 WHA No. C 09-05496 WHA ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Upon review of the pleadings in the above related cases, it appears that these two cases pending before the undersigned share not only the same parties, but nearly identical factual and legal issues. Specifically, both cases deal with alleged violations of the same sections of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act under what appear to be similar, if not identical factual circumstances. Since the earlier action is still in the initial stages of discovery, the cases appear ripe for consolidation under Rule 42(a) of the FRCP. The parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the above numbered cases should not be consolidated for all purposes including trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a). The parties must file a response to this order to the lowest numbered case by NOON ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 9, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE