Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union International et al

Filing 95

ORDER Denying without prejudice all pending 66 , 67 , 68 , 80 , 89 , Motions. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JOSE MENDOZA, JR., et al.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:18-CV-959 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
INTERNATIONAL, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is the matter of Mendoza et al v. Amalgamated Transit Union
International et al, case no. 2:18-cv-00959-JCM-CWH (“Mendoza II”).
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019, the court held a hearing to give the parties an opportunity
to show cause why the court should not consolidate this case with related case, no. 2:17-cv02485-JCM-CWH (“Mendoza I”). (ECF No. 92). As the parties did not object, the court
ordered that the related cases be consolidated. (ECF No. 93).
To avoid undue prejudice to the parties, the court will deny without prejudice the pending
motions in Mendoza I. See (ECF Nos. 66–68, 80, 89). The parties shall be permitted to renew
the motions once discovery in Mendoza II has concluded.
This course of proceedings will allow the court to resolve any motions for summary
judgment as to the claims in both cases simultaneously, thereby preserving judicial resources and
promoting the expeditious disposition of these related actions. See, e.g., Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.
Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (“This Court has also held that district courts have the inherent authority
to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient
resolution of cases.”).

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED THAT defendants Amalgamated Transit Union International,

3

Antonette Bryant, Lawrence J. Hanley, Carolyn Higgins, Tyler Home, James Lindsay, III, Keira

4

McNett, Terry Richards, Daniel Smith’s (collectively, “defendants”) motion for summary

5

judgment in Mendoza I (ECF No. 66) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff Jose Mendoza, Jr.’s (“plaintiff”) motion for

7

partial summary judgment in Mendoza I (ECF No. 67) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED

8

without prejudice.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s second motion for partial summary
judgment in Mendoza I (ECF No. 68) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s “Motion Declaring 29 USC 185

12

Unconstitutional” in Mendoza I (ECF No. 80) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

13

prejudice.

14
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants’ motion for leave to file supplement in
Mendoza I (ECF No. 89) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED March 28, 2019.

18
19

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-