Enertrode, Inc. v. General Capacitor Co. Ltd et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. CONSOLIDATING CASES Re (36) Stipulation in case 3:16-cv-02458-HSG. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ENERTRODE, INC.,

Case No. 16-cv-02458-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 36

9
10

GENERAL CAPACITOR CO. LTD, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GENERAL CAPACITOR
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

v.

15

Case No. 17-cv-00179-HSG

LINDA ZHONG,

16
17

Defendant.
On January 23, 2017, the parties in Enertrode, Inc. v. General Capacitor Co. LTD, Case

18

No. 16-cv-02458-HSG, filed a stipulation with a proposed order consolidating that case with

19

General Capacitor International Inc. v. Zhong, Case No. 17-cv-00179-HSG. Enertrode, Dkt. No.

20

36. On February 10, 2017, by order of the Court, the parties filed a joint statement regarding the

21

consolidation of these cases. Id., Dkt. No. 46. The Court also heard from the parties regarding

22

consolidation at the case management conferences on January 24, 2017, and February 28, 2017.

23

See id., Dkt. Nos. 38, 51. At the latter case management conference, the Court declared that it

24

would grant consolidation for all pretrial purposes. Id., Dkt. No. 51; see also Zhong, Dkt. No. 48.

25

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate actions if they

26

“involve a common question of law or fact.” The district court enjoys “broad discretion under this

27

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for

28

Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Snyder v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC,

1

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83924, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2016) (same). In exercising this “broad

2

discretion,” the district court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce

3

against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743

4

F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir.), on reh’g, 753 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Snyder, 2016 U.S. Dist.

5

LEXIS 83924, at *4 (same).

6

After careful consideration of the parties’ stipulation, joint statement, and arguments at the

7

case management conferences, as well as the relevant legal authorities, the Court finds that the two

8

cases in question involve common questions of fact and that consolidation of pretrial proceedings

9

would save substantial time and effort. Moreover, the Court does not anticipate that consolidation
of pretrial proceedings in these two cases would cause significant inconvenience, delay, or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

additional expense. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request to consolidate the

12

cases, but only with respect to pretrial proceedings. As stated at the most recent case management

13

conference, the Court postpones any ruling on consolidation for the purposes of trial.

14

GOOD CAUSE appearing therefore, the case captioned General Capacitor International

15

Inc. v. Zhong, Case No. 17-cv-00179-HSG is hereby consolidated for the purpose of pretrial

16

proceedings into Enertrode, Inc. v. General Capacitor Co. LTD, Case No. 16-cv-02458-HSG.

17

The earlier-filed civil action, Case No. 16-cv-2458-HSG, shall serve as the lead case. The clerk is

18

directed to administratively close the later-filed civil action, Case No. 17-cv-179-HSG. All future

19

filings should be done in the lead case only and should be captioned “In Re General Capacitor.”

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/1/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2