Davis v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services et al

Filing 118

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR TRIAL - All future filings for the consolidated actions shall be filed under Case No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

ECF No. 118

Jul 29, 2020

2

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

5

BARBARA DAVIS, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of G.B.,
deceased,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

PageID.2406 Page 1 of 8
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1

4

filed 07/29/20

Plaintiff,

No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ
No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
CASES FOR TRIAL

v.
JENNIFER STRUS, individually and in
her official capacity acting under the
color of state law; HEIDI KAAS,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
MELISSA KEHMEIER, individually
and in her official capacity acting under
the color of state law; JAMES
DESMOND, individually and in his
official capacity acting under the color
of state law; CASSIE ANDERSON,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
BRINA CARRIGAN, individually and
in her official capacity acting under the
color of state law; MAGGIE
STEWART, individually and in her
official capacity acting under the color
of state law; LORI BLAKE,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
SHANNON SULLIVAN, individually
and in her official capacity acting under
the color of state law; SUSAN
STEINER, individually and in her
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 1

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ECF No. 118

filed 07/29/20

PageID.2407 Page 2 of 8

official capacity acting under the color
of state law; CAMERON NORTON,
individually and in his official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
SARAH OASE, individually and in her
official capacity acting under the color
of state law; RANA PULLOM,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
DONALD WILLIAMS, individually
and in his official capacity acting under
the color of state law; CHRIS MEJIA,
individually and in his official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
416, a Municipal Corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws
of Washington State; JUANITA
MURRAY, individually and in her
official capacity acting under the color
of state law; ROBERTA KRAMER,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
SARAH RAMSDEN, individually and
in her official capacity acting under the
color of state law; CAROLINE
RAYMOND, individually and in her
official capacity acting under the color
of state law; CHERI MCQUESTEN,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
SARAH RAMSEY, individually and in
her official capacity acting under the
color of state law; TAMI BOONE,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
MELISSA REED, individually and in
her official capacity acting under the
color of state law; ANN STOPAR,
individually and in her official capacity
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 2

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ECF No. 118

filed 07/29/20

PageID.2408 Page 3 of 8

acting under the color of state law;
KRISTINA GRIFFITH, individually
and in her official capacity acting under
the color of state law; WENDY
SUPANCHICK, individually and in her
official capacity acting under the color
of state law; SHERRY DORNQUAST,
individually and in her official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
GARY VANDERHOLM, individually
and in his official capacity acting under
the color of state law; ROGER PRATT,
individually and in his official capacity
acting under the color of state law;
CHRIS NIEUWENHUIS, individually
and in his official capacity acting under
the color of state law; and JOHN DOES
1–50, individually and in their official
capacities acting under the color of state
law,

11

Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate

14

Matters for Trial, ECF No. 366. Plaintiff seeks to consolidate the above-captioned

15

matter with a related case also before this Court, Davis v. Washington State

16

Department of Social and Human Services, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ.

17

Id. at 1–2. The State Defendants1 filed a response indicating that the State

18
1

19
20

The State Defendants in this matter include Cassie Anderson, Lori Blake, Brina
Carrigan, James Desmond, Melissa Kehmeier, Chris Mejia, Cameron Norton, Sarah
Oase, Rana Pullom, Susan Steiner, Maggie Stewart, Jennifer Strus, Shannon
Sullivan, Donald Williams. ECF No. 371.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 3

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

ECF No. 118

filed 07/29/20

PageID.2409 Page 4 of 8

1

Defendants in both this matter and the related case do not oppose the motion to

2

consolidate for trial. ECF No. 371. In their response, the State Defendants represent

3

that because the Estate is neither seeking to merge the two causes of action nor

4

seeking to expand the relevant factual time period or legal theories, the State

5

Defendants in both this matter and the related case do not oppose consolidation.2

6

ECF No. 371 at 3. Neither the Riverside Defendants3 nor Defendant Sherry

7

Dornquast have responded to the motion to consolidate. Having reviewed the

8

motion and the file in the matter, the Court is fully informed and grants the motion.

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits the court to consolidate actions

10

where the actions “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

11

Actions need not be identical to warrant consolidation under Rule 42. Takeda v.

12

Turbodyne Techs., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1133 (C.D. Cal. 1999). When

13

determining whether to consolidate matters, the Court weighs “the interest in

14

judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused

15
16
17
18
19
20

2

The Court notes in Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ, the only Defendants are the
Department of Social and Human Services (“DSHS”) and two DSHS employees,
and that counsel for the State Defendants in the above-captioned matter who
submitted the response, Carl Warring, also represents all Defendants in the related
matter. See Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ.

3

The Riverside Defendants include the Riverside School District, No. 416; Tami
Boone; Kristina Griffith; Roberta Kramer; Chris Nieuwenhuis; Cheri McQuesten;
Juanita Murray; Roger Pratt; Sarah Ramsden; Caroline Raymond; Melissa Reed;
Ann Stopar; Wendy Supanchick; and Gary Vanderholm. ECF No. 350.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 4

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

ECF No. 118

filed 07/29/20

PageID.2410 Page 5 of 8

1

by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 303 F. Supp.

2

2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Machine Shop,

3

Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989)). District courts have broad discretion

4

regarding whether to consolidate. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487

5

(9th Cir. 1987).

6

The parties agree that the facts in the cases overlap. ECF No. 366 at 4; ECF

7

No. 371 at 2 (“In the respective joint status reports filed by the parties in anticipation

8

of the amended case scheduling orders, the Estate described its legal claims and

9

factual claims nearly identically”). The Court agrees with this assessment. Both

10

cases arise out of the sequence of events leading to minor child G.B.’s placement

11

by the Washington Department of Social and Human Services (“DSHS”) into the

12

care of his aunt, Cynthia Khaleel, his time spent in her care, and his tragic death.

13

Similarly, the parties agree the related matter asserts the same legal theories as

14

raised in the instant matter. ECF No. 366 at 2; ECF No. 371 at 3. As such,

15

consolidation for trial is appropriate.

16

The State Defendants, however, oppose consolidation for the purpose of

17

motions practice. ECF No. 371 at 2–3 n.1. Given that the dispositive motion

18

deadline in the above-captioned matter has passed while the dispositive motion

19

deadline in the related matter is set for November 10, 2020, the Court agrees

20

consolidation for the purposes of motions practice is not appropriate. Compare Case

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 5

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

ECF No. 118

filed 07/29/20

PageID.2411 Page 6 of 8

1

No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ, ECF No. 338 at 7 with Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ,

2

ECF No. 89 at 5. As such, the respective deadlines set forth in each case except

3

those related to trial, which are listed below, shall remain in effect, including

4

deadlines related to discovery, motions practice, mediation, and certification to the

5

Washington State Supreme Court.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

1.

GRANTED.

8
9

Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Matters for Trial, ECF No. 366, is

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CONSOLIDATE Case Nos. 2:17-

10

cv-00062-SMJ and 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ under the 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ

11

case number. All future filings for the consolidated actions shall be

12

filed under Case No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ. The file for 2:18-cv-00194-

13

SMJ shall be CLOSED.

14

3.

The following deadlines in the respective Scheduling Orders in Case

15

Nos. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ and 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ shall remain in

16

effect as to the respective claims and parties:

17

A.

Mediation Deadline;

18

B.

Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Identification and Reports Deadlines;

19

C.

Discovery Deadlines;

20

D.

Notice of To-Be-Adjudicated Claims and Affirmative Defenses

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 6

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

ECF No. 118

filed 07/29/20

PageID.2412 Page 7 of 8

Deadline;

1
2

E.

Dispositive and Daubert Motions Deadlines; and

3

F.

Deadline for Certification to the State Supreme Court.

4.

4

The following deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order in Case

5

No. 2:17-cv-00062-SMJ shall govern in the entire consolidated

6

matter:

7

A.

Witness and Exhibit Lists Deadlines;

8

B.

Deposition Designations Deadlines;

9

C.

Motions in Limine Deadline;

10

D.

Pretrial Order Deadline; and

11

E.

Trial Briefs, Vior Dire, and Jury Instructions Deadlines.

5.

12

The pretrial conference for the consolidated matter shall be held at
11:00 A.M. on January 5, 2021, in Spokane, Washington.

13
6.

14

The estimated 20-day JURY TRIAL shall commence at 9:00 A.M.

15

on February 1, 2022, in Spokane, Washington. The final pretrial

16

conference will begin at 8:30 A.M.

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 7

Case 2:18-cv-00194-SMJ

ECF No. 118

filed 07/29/20

PageID.2413 Page 8 of 8

1

A. If either party believes that a longer trial will be necessary due to

2

the consolidation of these matters, the parties are directed to meet

3

and confer and file a joint status report indicating the length of

4

time needed for trial within fourteen days of the entry of this

5

Order.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to counsel for all parties.
DATED this 29th day of July 2020.
_________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
FOR TRIAL – 8