Soares v. Lorono et al

Filing 256

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION - This case and Salinas Valley Roofing, Inc. v. Soares, No. 09-05296-ASW (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 26. 2009) are now consolidated in this Court for all purposes, including trial. This case shall be the lead case, and all future papers shall be filed under this case's caption and case number. Plaintiff's 244 Ex Parte MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is DENIED. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/08/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/8/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAUL F. SOARES,

Case No. 12-cv-05979-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

JEFFREY LORONO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
Re: Dkt. No. 244

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The parties have brought to the Court’s attention an adversary proceeding pending in the

14

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California which involves nearly identical

15

parties and revolves around the same underlying facts as the instant case. See Salinas Valley Roofing,

16

Inc. v. Soares, No. 09-05296-ASW (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 26. 2009). Although there is no formal

17

motion to consolidate pending before the Court, the parties stipulated to consolidation during a

18

telephonic conference held on October 7, 2014.

19

“[T]rial courts may consolidate cases sua sponte,” In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484,

20

1487 (9th Cir. 1987), and there are common questions of law and fact between this case and the

21

adversary proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Accordingly, this case and Salinas Valley

22

Roofing, Inc. v. Soares, No. 09-05296-ASW (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 26. 2009) are now consolidated in

23

this Court for all purposes, including trial. This case shall be the lead case, and all future papers shall

24

be filed under this case’s caption and case number. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-4(b).

25

Also before the Court is plaintiff Paul Soares’s Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

26

Jurisdiction Without Hearing. Dkt. No. 244. That motion is DENIED because this Court does have

27

jurisdiction over Soares’s claims. In the operative complaint in this case, Soares alleges a cause of

28

action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and seeks more than $50,000 in damages, see 15

1

U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3), meaning that his claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

2

United States” and federal question jurisdiction exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2