Rose v. State of Hawaii et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via U.S. Mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

XOCHI F. ROSE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. C17-1899RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE CASES

v.
STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,

14
15

Defendants.

16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases. Dkt.

17

#16. Plaintiff requests to consolidate this action with two other actions she has filed, Case No.

18

C17-1920-RAJ and Case No. C17-1900-RAJ. No Defendant has appeared in this matter.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law or
fact, the court may. . . consolidate the actions; or. . . issue any other
orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented no basis to consolidate these actions other
than her opaque statement that this consolidation is “for the purposes of discovery only.” Dkt.
#16 at 3. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint in the other two actions and finds that
these cases do not present a common question of law or fact.

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES - 1

1

Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s briefing and the remainder of the record, the

2

Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases, Dkt. #16, is

3

DENIED. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.

4
5
6
7
8
9

DATED this 27 day of March, 2018.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES - 2