Gardias v. The California State University, San Jose State University
Filing
88
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting (19) defendant's Motion to Consolidate Cases; granting (15), (26) plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaints; and (3) Setting Case Management Conference. Cases consolidated under common case number C09-05291HRL, and all future filings to be made exclusively in that case. Clerk shall administratively terminate Case Nos. C09-05611HRL, C10-03437HRL, C10-05637HRL, and C11-03196HRL. Plaintiff's motion to amend granted, and identified claims and allegations are dismissed. Case management conference set for 4/3/2012, 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2. Joint case management statement due by 3/27/2012. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2012)
1
2
*E-FILED: February 13, 2012*
3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
7
Nos.
PIOTR J. GARDIAS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
C09-05291 HRL
C09-05611 HRL
C10-03437 HRL
C10-05637 HRL
C11-03196 HRL
v.
14
15
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY;
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,
16
Defendant.
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES;
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINTS; AND (3)
SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
17
/
[Re: Docket Nos. 19, 26]
18
19
20
Defendant moves for an order consolidating plaintiff’s pending actions for all purposes,
21
including trial. The court finds that consolidation will promote economy and efficiency, and
22
that no party will be prejudiced. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for consolidation is granted.
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The above-captioned actions shall be consolidated under the common
24
case number, C09-05291HRL, and all future filings shall be made exclusively in that case.
25
Gardias’ request for a separate bench trial in Case No. C09-05291 is denied. In view of the
26
consolidation, the clerk shall administratively terminate Case Nos. C09-05611HRL, C10-03437
27
HRL, C10-05637 HRL, and C11-03196 HRL.
28
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the complaints filed in Case Nos. C10-03437HRL
and C10-05637HRL. Specifically, he wishes to delete the following claims and allegations
2
from his complaint in Case No. C10-03437HRL: (1) claims based on race, color, and national
3
origin; (2) allegations that Anton Kashiri made an offensive remark about Jesus Christ;
4
(3) allegations that plaintiff suffered an anxiety attack on June 30, 2010 because of Adam
5
Bayer’s behavior; and (4) allegations concerning a July 2010 suspension and a denial of
6
medical benefits for Gardias and his wife. As for Case No. C10-05637HRL, plaintiff wishes to
7
delete the following allegations that, in July 2010, Adam Bayer accused him of poor work
8
performance. The court will treat Gardias’ motion to amend as a request for voluntary
9
dismissal. His motion is granted, and the above-described claims and allegations are dismissed.
10
The parties shall appear for a case management conference on April 3, 2012, 1:30 p.m.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
1
in Courtroom 2 to discuss, among other things, setting a deadline for hearing dispositive
12
motions in the now consolidated action. A joint case management statement shall be filed no
13
later than March 27, 2012.
14
15
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2012
________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
16
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Mary Susan Cain-Simon Mary.CainSimon@doj.ca.gov, ECFCoordinator@doj.ca.gov,
Leticia.MartinezCarter@doj.ca.gov
3
4
Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:
5
Piotr J. Gardias
72 Floyd St.
San Jose, CA 95110
6
7
Pro Se Plaintiff
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?