Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc. et al v. Lopez et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying 26 Motion to Consolidate Cases for Trial and Adopt a Universal Scheduling Order. The hearing on this motion, scheduled for July 8, 2013, is vacated. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/27/2013. (knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ
and ALEJANDRO LOPEZ
FERREIRA,

12
13
14
15
16

vs.

Plaintiffs,

AQUI ES TEXCOCO, INC.,
FRANCISCO PEREZ, and DOES 110, inclusive,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1215 BEN (WVG)
CASE NO. 12-CV-2113 BEN (WVG)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR
TRIAL AND ADOPT A
UNIVERSAL SCHEDULING
ORDER

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

AQUI ES TEXCOCO, INC., a
California Corporation; FRANCISCO
PEREZ, an individual,

25

Plaintiffs,
vs.
EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ,
an individual; ALEJANDRO LOPEZ
FERREIRA, an individual; SANDRA
CASTILLO, an individual; all
defendants doing business as Aqui
Esta Texcoco; AQUI ESTA
TEXCOCO, a business entity; DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,

26

Defendants.

21
22
23
24

27
28
-1-

1

Before the Court is a motion to consolidate two cases for trial. The cases are:

2 Eduardo Maldonado Lopez et al. v. Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court
3 Case No. 3:12-cv-01215-BEN-WVG (“the Wage case”), and Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc.
4 et al. v. Eduardo Maldonado Lopez et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 3:12
5 cv-02113-BEN-WVG ( “the Trademark case”). In the Wage case, Eduardo
6 Maldonado Lopez and Alejandro Lopez Ferreira assert claims for unpaid overtime
7 and other wages against defendants Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc. and Francisco Perez. In
8 the Trademark case, Aqui es Texcoco and Francisco Perez assert claims against
9 Eduardo Maldonado Lopez, Alejandro Lopez Ferreira, and others. That case
10 involves claims of trademark infringement, trade libel and trade secret
11 misappropriation.
12

Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc. and Francisco Perez request consolidation and adoption

13 of the Court’s scheduling order in the Trademark case for both actions. Currently,
14 the Wage case has a Final Pretrial Conference set for October 28, 2013, and the
15 Trademark case has a Final Pretrial Conference set for April 7, 2014. Discovery is
16 closed in the Wage case.
17

The extent to which the opposing parties support or oppose consolidation is

18 unclear. On June 12, 2013, counsel for Eduardo Maldonado Lopez, Alejandro
19 Lopez Ferriera, and others in the Trademark case filed a notice of joinder on his
20 clients’ behalf. On June 25, 2013, the attorney for Eduardo Maldonado Lopez and
21 Alejandro Lopez Ferriera in the Wage case opposed the motion on Lopez’s behalf
22 (the attorney stated that he had been unable to reach Ferreira). The Court need not
23 resolve this inconsistency. It declines to order consolidation. See CivLR 7.1.d.1 (“A
24 judge may, in the judge’s discretion, decide a motion without oral
25 argument.”)
26

The Court has discretion to consolidate cases that involve a “a common

27 question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d
28 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). However, “[w]here a case that is ready for or close to
-2-

1 trial would be held up pending completion of pretrial proceedings in another case,
2 courts have consistently denied consolidation.” Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican
3 Grill, Inc., No 05-CV-1660-J WMC, 2007 WL 2669531, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7,
4 2007). Because discovery has closed in the Wage case, and because the legal and
5 factual overlap between these cases is minimal, consolidation for the purposes of
6 trial is not appropriate at this juncture. The motion is denied. The hearing on this
7 motion, scheduled for July 8, 2013, is vacated.
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10 DATED: June 27, 2013
11
12

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-