Martinez v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLAS MARTINEZ, an individual, No. 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC, a limited liability company; AUSTIN 15 GILMORE, an individual; JASON VELLIDO, an individual; and DOES 1-30, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 No. 1:22-cv-01644-ADA-CDB THEODORE HATLESTAD, 19 Plaintiff, 20 ORDER GRATING PARTIES’ v. STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF 21 MARTINEZ’S FOURTH CAUSE OF O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC, a ACTION, DISMISSING DEFENDANTS 22 limited liability company; AUSTIN GILMORE AND VELLIDO, AND GILMORE, an individual; JASON CONSOLIDATING CASES 23 VELLIDO, an individual; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26 On January 27, 2023, the parties’ stipulated to: (1) dismiss Plaintiff Nicolas Martinez’s fourth 27 cause of action for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention, (2) to dismiss Defendant 28 1 Austin Gilmore from the action, (3) to dismiss Defendant Jason Vellido from the action, and (4) 2 to consolidate the following cases for all purposes: 3 • Martinez v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC, et al. (No. 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB); and 4 • Hatlestad v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC, et al. (No. 1:22-cv-01644-ADA-CDB). 5 (See Case No. 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB, ECF No. 9.) The parties stipulated the “Martinez 6 matter” be “deemed the ‘lead’ case.” (Id.) 7 The Court grants the parties’ stipulation to dismiss Plaintiff Martinez’s fourth cause of 8 action and to dismiss Defendant Austin Gilmore and Defendant Jason Vellido. (See Case No. 9 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB, ECF No. 9.) 10 On January 19, 2023, the undersigned related and reassigned the latter-filed case. (See 11 Case No. 1:22-cv-1644-ADA-CDB, ECF No. 9.) Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of 12 Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court 13 may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the 14 actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its 15 discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against 16 any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 17 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the Court finds that the actions involve the same or similar parties, 18 claims, and questions of fact or law and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 19 duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to grant the parties’ stipulation to consolidate 20 the cases. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The parties’ stipulation (Case No. 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB, ECF No. 9); dismissing 23 Plaintiff Martinez’s fourth case of action, Defendant Austin Gilmore, and Defendant Jason 24 Vellido, and consolidating these cases, is granted; 25 2. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, pursuant 26 to Rule 42(a); 27 /// 28 /// 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced cases; 2 and 3 4. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file documents under 4 only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the lead case number followed 5 by the member case number as follows: 6 Lead Case: 1:22-cv-01643-ADA-CDB 7 Member Case: 1:22-cv-01644-ADA-CDB 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 1, 2023 12 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28