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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?