(PC) Ashker v. Beard ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD ASHKER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01611-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 13 v. (Doc. No. No. 63) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. Case Nos. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG and 1:21-cv-01611-HBK 16 17 18 On November 4, 2021, the Northern District of California severed Plaintiff Todd Ashker’s 19 claims against Defendants Allison, Prelip, Paris, and Moak and transferred them to this District 20 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and joint motion to transfer these claims. (Doc. No. 61, see 21 also Doc. Nos. 59, 60). On November 16, 2021, Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 42 to consolidate this action with Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG, asserting that 23 the actions involve common questions of fact and noting that the parties agreed in their stipulation 24 that these claims should be litigated in Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG.1 (Doc. No. 63). 25 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the 26 27 1 Because Plaintiff already agreed in the parties’ stipulation that these claims should be litigated in Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG, the Court finds it unnecessary to await any potential opposition to the 28 motion to consolidate. een nn ene enn NE I SE OI OI EID EO 1 court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or 2 | all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to 3 | avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of 4 | time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 5 | would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the Court finds 6 | that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact 7 | or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Thus, 8 | good cause exists to grant the motion to consolidate these cases.” 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 1. Defendants’ motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 63) is GRANTED; 11 2. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, 12 pursuant to Rule 42(a); 13 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 14 cases; 15 4. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 16 documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the 17 lead case number followed by the member case number as follows: 18 Lead Case: 1:21-cv-00423-NONE-EPG 19 Member Case: 1:21-cv-01611-HBK 20 21 Dated: _ November 19, 2021 law ZA. foareh Back 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 || “Motions to consolidate are considered non-dispositive and are within the pre-trial authority of the magistrate judge.” Jackson v. Berkey, No. 3:19-cv-06101-BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 1974247, at *2 (W.D. 28 | Wash. Apr. 24, 2020).