Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield ( 2019 )

1 RODNEY S. DIGGS, Esq. (SBN 274459) rdiggs@imwlaw.com 2 IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT 444 S. Flower Street 3 Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 Tel: (213) 489-0028 Fax: (213) 489-0552 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, CASE NO.: 1:18−cv−01512−LJO−JLT an individual ) 10 Plaintiff, ) AMENDED ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE ) CASES AND MODIFY THE NASH- 11 vs. ) PERRY SCHEDULING ORDER ) 12 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, OFFICER ) ALEJANDRO PATINO, and DOES 1-10, ) 13 Inclusive, ) ) 14 Defendants. ) ) 15 16 TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL 17 OF RECORD: 18 The parties, TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, Plaintiff in the matter of Nash-Perry v. City of 19 Bakersfield, et al. Case No. 1:18-CV-01512-LJO-JLT, Jason Okamoto and Z.S., Plaintiffs in the 20 matter of Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-01125-DAD-JLT, and 21 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD and OFFICER ALEJANDRO PATINO, Defendants in both matters, 22 by and through their respective counsel of record, have conferred and hereby stipulate to 23 consolidate cases Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al. and Okamoto, et al. v. City of 24 Bakersfield, et al. pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Parties also 25 hereby stipulate to continue trial from January 12, 2021 to July 13, 2021. 26 27 1 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND CONTINUE 1 JOINT STIPULATION 2 WHEREAS, presently pending in this Court are two related actions identified below: 3 1. Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District 4 of California, Case No. 1:18-CV-01512-LJO-JLT “Nash-Perry;” and 5 2. Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern 6 District of California, Case No. 1:19-CV-01125-JLO-JLT (“Okamoto”); 7 WHEREAS, both cases arise out of the same incident which occurred on April 19, 2018; 8 WHEREAS, Decedent’s mother Tametria Nash-Perry filed her initial complaint on 9 October 31, 2018, asserting constitutional claims on her own behalf as well as constitutional, 10 state law and survivorship claims on behalf of Christopher Okamoto (“Decedent”) as his mother. 11 Plaintiff Nash-Perry also alleges she has the right to recover as successor in interest to Decedent 12 and has named Decedent’s father Jason Okamoto as a nominal defendant in her operative complaint; 13 WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019, Decedent’s father Jason Okamoto (“Mr. Okamoto”) 14 and alleged child Z.S. filed their Complaint for Damages against Defendants alleging 15 constitutional claims on their own behalf and also assert state law and survivorship claims on 16 behalf Decedent, both in the individual capacity and as successors in interest to Decedent; 17 WHEREAS, Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to 18 consolidate actions pending before it if those actions involve a “common question of law or fact” 19 and a Court may consider several factors that would affect the litigation including the burden on 20 parties, witnesses, judicial resources, the risk of inconsistent adjudications, the potential for 21 prejudice, and the risk of delaying trial. Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2nd Cir. 22 1990); Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993); Malcolm v. National 23 Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350 (2nd Cir. 1993); Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 24 762 (5th Cir. 1989); 25 26 27 2 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND CONTINUE 1 WHEREAS, the Parties now seek to consolidate the above related actions pursuant to 2 F.R.C.P. 42 because each action asserts substantially the same claims and raise substantially the 3 same questions of fact and law regarding liability and damages; 4 WHEREAS, the instant actions of Nash-Perry and Okamoto have both been properly 5 filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California and involve the exact same 6 facts and circumstances, share many of the same causes of action, would require the same legal 7 analysis, and as such, satisfy the only requirement for consolidation under Rule 42(a); 8 WHEREAS, consolidating these two cases would clearly serve the interests of justice: 9 increases judicial efficiency, avoids duplicative evidence, procedures, and inconsistent 10 adjudications, precludes waste, and alleviates potential burdens to the court and all parties 11 involved. Furthermore, since both Nash-Perry and Okamoto allege survivorship actions, where 12 there can be only one, this will allow a final determination as to the propriety of such claims by each Plaintiff at the same time thus further substantiating the appropriateness of consolidating 13 these actions; 14 WHEREAS, trial in the Nash-Perry matter is scheduled for January 12, 2021 based on 15 the Scheduling Order [Dkt. 19] 16 WHEREAS, the Scheduling Conference in Okamoto is currently scheduled to take place 17 on November 13, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. and thus, a Scheduling Order has not been entered; and 18 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that additional time will be needed in order to engage in 19 meaningful discovery efforts and litigate this matter in light of the requested consolidation. 20 STIPULATION 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties hereto through their 22 respective attorneys of record: 23 1. The Nash-Perry and Okamoto cases will be consolidated; 24 2. The Scheduling Order in Nash-Perry shall be modified as follows and shall govern 25 the consolidated case as follows: 26 27 3 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND CONTINUE 1 DEADLINE/HEARING CURRENT REQUESTED 2 DATE DATE 3 Initial Disclosures None 11/14/2019 (Okamoto v. City of Bakersfield) 4 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff 03/30/2020 11/25/2020 5 Expert Witness Disclosure 04/13/2020 12/07/2020 6 Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure 05/11/2020 01/04/2021 7 Expert Discovery Cutoff 06/08/2020 01/19/2021 8 File Non-Dispositive Motions 06/22/2020 02/03/2021 9 Hear Non-Dispositive Motions 07/20/2020 03/05/2021 10 File Dispositive Motions 08/05/2020 03/15/2021 11 Hear Dispositive Motions 09/16/2020 04/26/2021 Settlement Conference 01/10/2020 05/14/2021 12 Pre-Trial Conference 11/12/2020 06/14/2021 13 Trial 01/12/2021 07/13/2021 14 15 3. The Scheduling Conference in Okamoto currently scheduled to take place on 16 November 13, 2019 at 8:30 a.m shall be vacated. 17 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 18 19 Dated: November 12, 2019 IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT 20 /s/ Rodney S. Diggs 21 By:____________________________________ RODNEY S. DIGGS 22 Attorney for Plaintiff Nash-Perry 23 Dated: November 12, 2019 CHAIN COHN STILES 24 /s/ Matt Clark 25 By:____________________________________ MATT CLARK 26 Attorney for Plaintiffs Okamato and Z.S. 27 4 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND CONTINUE 1 2 Dated: November 12, 2019 MARDEROSIAN & COHEN 3 /s/ Heather S. Cohen 4 By:_______________________________________ 5 HEATHER S. COHEN Attorney for Defendants above-named. 6 7 ORDER 8 Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern 10 District of California, Case No. 1:18-cv-01512 LJO JLT and Okamoto, et al. v. City of 11 Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:19-cv- 12 01125 LJO JLT are CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES. The new case number for all 13 filings is 1:18-cv-01512 LJO JLT; 14 2. The parties SHALL comply with the case schedule issued in Nash-Perry v. City 15 of Bakersfield, et al., and which is modified as follows: 16 a. The parties SHALL make their initial disclosure no later than November 14, 2019; 17 b. The parties SHALL complete all non-expert discovery no later than 18 November 25, 2020 and all expert discovery no later than January 19, 2021. The parties 19 SHALL disclose their experts no later than December 7, 2020 and any rebuttal experts no 20 later than January 4, 2021; 21 c. The parties SHALL file non-dispositive motions, if any, no later than 22 February 3, 2021. These motions will be heard no later than March 5, 2021; 23 d. The parties SHALL file dispositive motions, if any, no later than March 24 15, 2021. These motions will be heard no later than April 29, 2021; 25 e. The settlement conference is CONTINUED to May 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. 26 f. The pretrial conference is CONTINUED to June 24, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.; 27 5 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND CONTINUE 1 g. The trial is CONTINUED to August 24, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. 2 3. With the stipulation to consolidate the matters, the motion to consolidate (Doc. 3 35) filed in the Nash-Perry matter is MOOT; 4 4. With the consolidation for all purposes, the motion to join heirs (Doc. 8) filed in 5 the Okamoto matter is MOOT; 6 5. The Scheduling Conference in Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al. Case 7 No. 1:19-cv-01125 LJO JLT currently set on November 13, 2019 is VACATED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: November 12, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 6 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND CONTINUE