Hopson v. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California

Filing 43

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 23, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PATTY HOPSON,

Case Nos. 3:13-cv-04723-JST

Plaintiff,

3:14-cv-02088-JST

8
v.

3:14-cv-02559-JST

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND
FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

Defendant.
Before the court are three three related cases, all brought by Plaintiff Patty Hopson

13

(“Plaintiff”). In all of them, Plaintiff is suing either the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for

14

Northern California (“Pension Trust”), or an an employee of the Pension Trust, for denying her

15

disability benefits she claims the Pension Trust owes her.

16

This court ordered Plaintiff to file a case management statement no later than June 18

17

stating whether she would oppose consolidation of the first two cases. ECF No. 35 in Case No.

18

13-cv-4723. Plaintiff failed to file any statement indicating her position on consolidation. The

19

Pension Trust supports consolidation. ECF No. 38 in Case No. 13-cv-4723.

20

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it

21

. . . may order all the actions consolidated.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42(a). The “district court has broad

22

discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research

23

Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In

24

determining whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should ‘weigh the interest of judicial

25

convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice.’” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings,

26

Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A

27

Machine Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 806–807 (N.D. Cal. 1989)).

28

From the operative complaints, it appears that all three actions involve common questions

1

of law and fact. Plaintiff has declined to make the court aware of any delay, confusion or

2

prejudice that might result from consolidation, and since the court has yet to even set a schedule in

3

any of the cases, no such risks are apparent.

4

The court hereby CONSOLIDATES the three above-captioned cases. The first-filed case,

5

No. 13-cv-4723, shall serve as the lead case. The Clerk shall only file future submissions in that

6

case. The other two cases are ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, and any pending dates,

7

deadlines and case schedules in those cases are VACATED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

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