Hayes v. Kern County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHARLES HAYES, No. 1:19-cv-01722-BAK (BAM) 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 KERN COUNTY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 CHARLES HAYES, No. 1:20-cv-01820-BAK (BAM) 14 Plaintiff, (New Case No. 1:19-cv-01722-BAK (BAM)) 15 v. 16 MARIO ROJAS, et al., AMENDED ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before this Court is Stipulation to Consolidate Case. ECF No. 50. After 20 reviewing the stipulation and the applicable law, this Court now rules. 21 The Court finds Charles Hayes v. Rojas, United States District Court, Eastern District of 22 California, Case No. 1:20-cv-01820-BAK (BAM) and Charles Hayes v. Kern County, et al. 23 United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-01722-BAK (BAM) 24 share common questions of law and fact. Furthermore, by consolidating these cases, the Court’s 25 efficiency will be increased, and the duplication of evidence and procedures will be avoided, as 26 will prevent potential inconsistent adjudications. 27 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the 28 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). 6 Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, 7 claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 8 duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes pursuant to Rule 11 42(a); 12 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 13 cases; and 14 3. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 15 documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the 16 lead case number followed by the member case numbers as follows: 17 Lead Case: 1:19-cv-01722-BAK 18 Member Case: 1:20-cv-01820-BAK 19 4. The scheduling order (Doc. 44) issued in member case Charles Hayes v. Rojas, et 20 al., 1:20-cv-01820-BAK (BAM) will control the consolidated litigation. 21 5. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 47) is withdrawn and the 22 hearing set for May 13, 2022 at 9:00 am is vacated. The May 17, 2022 status 23 conference remains on calendar. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: May 17, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28