Collins v. Spencer

Filing 9

ORDER Granting Joint Motions to Consolidate. The Joint Motions to Consolidate are granted, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 8; 17-CV-1724, ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the Court dismisses as moot Defendant's prior Motions to Consolidate, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 7, and 17-CV-1724, ECF No. 8) and vacates the hearing set for 12/1/2018. All future filings shall bear the case number 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 12/20/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSEPH A. COLLINS,

Case No.: 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC)
Related Case: 17-CV-1724 JLS (KSC)

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

RICHARD V. SPENCER,

ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE
Defendant.

14

(17-CV-1723: ECF No. 8)

15

(17-CV-1724: ECF No. 9)

16
17

Presently before the Court are the Parties’ Joint Motions to Consolidate Cases and

18

File an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed two lawsuits, 17-CV-1723, and 17-CV-1724.

19

The cases have been deemed related and both have been assigned to this Court. The Parties

20

have filed the present Motion requesting the Court consolidate the two matters. The Joint

21

Motion was filed in both matters, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 8; 17-CV-1724, ECF No. 9.)

22
23
24
25

Consolidation of cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which
provides as follows:
(a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or
fact, the court may:

26

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;

27

(2) consolidate the actions; or

28

(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
1
17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC)
Related Case: 17-CV-1724 JLS (KSC)

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). This rule affords courts “broad discretion” to consolidate cases

2

pending in the same district, either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams

3

Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). “The Court considers a number of factors

4

in analyzing the appropriateness of consolidation, including judicial economy, whether

5

consolidation would expedite resolution of the case, whether separate cases may yield

6

inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to a party opposing consolidation.” First

7

Mercury Ins. Co. v. SQI, Inc., No. C13-2109 JLR, 2014 WL 496685, at *3 (W.D. Wash.

8

Feb. 6, 2014) (citing 8 Moore’s Federal Practice § 42.10 (Matthew Bender ed. 3d Ed.

9

2017)).

10

Here, the Court finds consolidation will serve the interests of judicial economy by

11

eliminating the need to file separate motions in each case on similar issues. Further, there

12

is no prejudice, as shown by the fact that the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate.

13

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motions and consolidates this case for all

14

purposes with Collins v. Spencer, 17-CV-1724 JLS (KSC). All future pleadings SHALL

15

bear the case number 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC). Further, the Parties state Plaintiff has

16

agreed to file an Amended Complaint; this SHALL be filed in 17-CV-1723 within 45 days

17

of the date this Order is electronically docketed.

18

CONCLUSION

19

The Joint Motions to Consolidate are GRANTED, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 8; 17-

20

CV-1724, ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES AS MOOT Defendant’s prior

21

Motions to Consolidate, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 7, and 17-CV-1724, ECF No. 8) and

22

VACATES the hearing set for February 1, 2018. The Clerk SHALL close the file for 17-

23

CV-1724.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2017

26
27
28
2
17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC)
Related Case: 17-CV-1724 JLS (KSC)