Morales v. City of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 LAW OFFICE OF DALE K. GALIPO DALE K. GALIPO, SBN 144074 2 Hang D. Le, Esq., SBN 293450 21800 Burbank Blvd., Suite 310 3 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 347-3333 4 Facsimile: (818) 347-4118 5 LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ 6 STEWART KATZ, State Bar #127425 555 University Avenue, Suite 270 7 Sacramento, California 95825 8 Telephone: (916) 444-5678 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 A.A.M., individually and as successor in interest Case No. 2:21-cv-1619-MCE-JDP 14 to AUGUSTINE MORALES, Deceased, by and (related to Case No. 2:21-cv-2093) 15 through WENDY GRIJALVA, as Guardian ad Litem; A.B.M., individually and as successor in 16 interest to AUGUSTINE MORALES, Deceased, STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE by and through WENDY GRIJALVA, as CASES; ORDER 17 Guardian ad Litem ; JOSEPH MORALES, 18 WENDY GRIJALVA, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 vs. 21 CITY OF SACRAMENTO; JEREMIAH JARVIS 22 Defendants. 23 _____________________________________/ 24 The parties, all Plaintiffs and Defendants in the related cases of A.A.M. 25 individually and as successor in interest to Augustine Morales, Deceased et al. v. 26 Defendant County of Sacramento et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-1619-MCE-JDP and Roxanne 27 28 1 Morales et al. v. County of Sacramento et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-2093-MCE-JDP, hereby 2 stipulate an agree as follows: 3 4 1. WHEREAS, both of the above-referenced related cases seek damages resulting from 5 the same event, the shooting death of Augustine Morales by SPD Sergeant Jeremiah 6 Jarvis (hereinafter referred to as “Decedent”) on or about November 14, 2020; 7 2. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, alleged to be Decedent's minor children, biological 8 father and the minor children’s mother filed their initial complaint in Case No. 9 2:21-cv-1619-MCE-JDP on or about September 9, 2021, asserting constitutional 10 claims on their own behalf as well as constitutional, state law and survivorship 11 claims for the wrongful death of the Decedent; 12 3. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, alleged to be Decedent's adult daughter and biological 13 mother filed their initial complaint in Case No. 2:21-cv-2093-MCE-JDP on or 14 about November 10, 2021, similarly asserting constitutional claims on their own 15 behalf as well as constitutional, state law and survivorship claims for the 16 wrongful death of the Decedent; 17 4. WHEREAS on or about January 7, 2022, this Court ordered the two above referenced 18 matters related pursuant to Local Rule 123; 19 5. WHEREAS, Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to 20 consolidate actions pending before it if those actions involve a "common question of 21 law or fact" and a Court may consider several factors that would affect the litigation 22 including the burden on parties, witnesses, judicial resources, the risk of inconsistent 23 adjudications, the potential for prejudice, and the risk of delaying trial. Johnson v. 24 Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2nd Cir. 1990); Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 25 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993); Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350 (2nd 26 Cir. 1993); Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 1989); 27 6. WHEREAS, the Parties now seek to consolidate the above related actions 28 pursuant to F.R.C.P. 42; 1 7. WHEREAS, the above-referenced actions have both been properly filed in the 2 United States District Court, Eastern District of California and involve the exact 3 same facts and circumstances, the same percipient witnesses, share many of the 4 same causes of action, would require the same legal analysis, and as such, satisfy 5 the requirements for consolidation under Rule 42(a). 6 8. WHEREAS, consolidating these two cases would clearly serve the interests of 7 justice: increases judicial efficiency, avoids duplicative evidence, procedures, 8 and inconsistent adjudications, precludes waste, and alleviates potential burdens 9 to the court and all parties involved. Furthermore, since both actions allege 10 survivorship and wrongful death claims, consolidation will allow a final 11 determination as to the propriety of such claims by each Plaintiff at the same 12 time thus further substantiating the appropriateness of consolidating these 13 actions. Indeed, California wrongful death statutes ordinarily require joint 14 litigation of the heirs' claims in order to prevent a series of suits against the 15 tortfeasor. See e.g. Cross v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 60 Cal.2d 690, 692-94, 36. 16 Cal.Rptr. 321 (1964); 17 9. WHEREAS, there is no trial date scheduled in either case; 18 10. WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding a proposed schedule 19 in the matter taking into consideration this Court’s Scheduling Order. 20 STIPULATION 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties hereto 22 through their respective attorneys of record that the above-referenced cases be 23 consolidated for all purposes. 24 The Parties also agree/propose the following schedule, subject to the Court’s 25 approval, for the adjudication of the consolidated cases: 26 a. Close of Non-Expert Discovery: April 18, 2023; 27 b. Expert Disclosures: June 16, 2023 (within sixty days of close of discovery); 28 1 c. Supplemental Expert Disclosures: July 14, 2023 (within 30 days of expert 2 disclosures); 3 d. Close of Expert Discovery : August 11, 2023 (more than 60 days prior to L/D 4 to file Dispositive Motions); 5 e. L/D to file Dispositive Motions: October 13, 2023 (within 180 days of Close of 6 Non-Expert Discovery). 7 f. Pretrial Conference: TBD; 8 g. Trial: TBD. 9 10 Dated: 9-12-22 Respectfully submitted, 11 12 /s/_Stewart Katz Stewart Katz 13 Law Office of Stewart Katz 14 Dale K. Galipo 15 Hang Le Law Office of Dale K. Galipo 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff s in 2:21-cv-1619 17 18 Dated: 9-16-22 /s/_Patrick Buelna 19 Patrick Buelna 20 Pointer & Buelna, LLP 21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in 2:21-cv-2093 22 23 Dated: 9-13-22 /s/ Sean Richmond 24 Sean Richmond City of Sacramento Attorney’s Office 25 26 Attorneys for Defendants in 2:21-cv-1619, and 2:21-cv-2093 27 28 1 ORDER 2 1. The above-referenced related cases – A.A.M. individually and as successor in 3 interest to Augustine Morales, Deceased et al. v. Defendant County of Sacramento 4 et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-1619-MCE-JDP and Roxanne Morales et al. v. County of 5 Sacramento et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-2093-MCE-JDP – are CONSOLIDATED 6 FOR ALL PURPOSES. 7 2. The Clerk is directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Answer (ECF No. 5) 8 previously filed in 2:21-cv-2093-MCE-JDP into the lead case 2:21-cv-1619-MCE- 9 JDP; 10 3. The Clerk is directed to close the member case 2:21-cv-2093-MCE-JDP. Parties 11 are directed to file all documents in 2:21-cv-1619-MCE-JDP only; 12 4. The following Scheduling Order shall apply to these consolidated actions: 13 a. Close of Non-Expert Discovery: April 18, 2023; 14 b. Expert Disclosures: June 16, 2023 (within sixty days of close of discovery); 15 c. Supplemental Expert Disclosures: July 14, 2023 (within 30 days of expert 16 disclosures); 17 d. Close of Expert Discovery : August 11, 2023 (more than 60 days prior to 18 L/D to file Dispositive Motions); 19 e. L/D to file Dispositive Motions: October 13, 2023 (within 180 days of 20 Close of Non-Expert Discovery). 21 f. Pretrial Conference: TBD; 22 g. Trial: TBD. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: September 22, 2022 25 26 27 28