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