Titus-Lay v. California Northstate University, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GANESH SANKAR, individually and on No. 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER RELATING AND REASSIGNING v. CASES, GRANTING THE PARTIES’ JOINT 14 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES, AND CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S 15 UNIVERSITY, LLC, MOTION TO DISMISS 16 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 9, 15) 17 ERIKA TITUS-LAY, No. 2:24-cv-01231-JAM-DB 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE 21 UNIVERSITY, LLC, 22 Defendant. 23 24 Before the court is the parties’ joint stipulation requesting that the court consolidate two 25 cases pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (i) Sankar v. California 26 Northstate University, LLC, 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP, which was filed on February 15, 2024 and 27 is currently pending before the undersigned (“Sankar”); and (ii) Titus-Lay v. California 28 Northstate University, LLC, 2:24-cv-01231-JAM-DB, which was filed on April 29, 2024 and is 1 currently pending before Senior District Judge John A. Mendez (“Titus-Lay”). (Doc. No. 15.) 2 Although the parties did not file their stipulation in the Titus-Lay action, the stipulation filed in 3 the Sankar action is signed by all counsel, including counsel of record for the plaintiff in the 4 Titus-Lay action. (See id. at 4–5.) 5 As a preliminary matter, the parties did not file a notice of related cases in either action as 6 required by Local Rule 123. Specifically, Local Rule 123(b) provides that “[c]ounsel who has 7 reason to believe that an action on file or about to be filed may be related to another action on file 8 (whether or not dismissed or otherwise terminated) shall promptly file in each action and serve on 9 all parties in each action a Notice of Related Cases.” L.R. 123(b). Nonetheless, the parties’ 10 stipulation expresses the parties’ belief that the two cases are related. (See Doc. No. 15 at 3) 11 (“These actions involve allegations by the same or similar parties, and allege the same or similar 12 claims, and questions of fact and law—thus, consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 13 duplication of proceedings.”). 14 Indeed, an examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within 15 the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Accordingly, assignment of the above-captioned actions to the 16 same district judge and magistrate judge will promote substantial efficiency and economy for the 17 court and is likely to be convenient for the parties. The local rules of this district authorize the 18 judge with the lowest numbered case to order the reassignment of any higher numbered cases to 19 himself or herself, upon determining that this assignment is likely to effect a savings of judicial 20 effort. L.R. 123(c). Such good cause appearing here, the court will order that Case No. 2:24-cv- 21 01231-JAM-DB be reassigned to the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. 22 Moreover, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions 23 before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or 24 trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other 25 orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the 26 saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or 27 expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). 28 ///// 1 Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, 2 claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and 3 duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to consolidate these cases. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The parties’ joint motion to consolidate cases (Doc. No. 15) is granted; 6 a. Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint by no later than thirty (30) 7 days after entry of this order; 8 b. Defendant’s response to the consolidated complaint shall be filed by no 9 later than thirty (30) days after service of the consolidated complaint; and 10 c. If defendant’s response is a motion to dismiss, then plaintiffs shall file their 11 opposition or statement of non-opposition by no later than thirty (30) days 12 after service of that motion, and defendant’s reply shall be filed within 13 twenty-one (21) after service of plaintiffs’ opposition; 14 2. Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss in the Sankar action (Doc. No. 9) is denied 15 as having been rendered moot by this order; 16 3. The above-referenced cases are hereby related and consolidated for all purposes, 17 including trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); 18 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reassign case 2:24-cv-01231-JAM-DB to 19 District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson; 20 5. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file 21 documents under only the lead case number. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 22 administratively close the member case. Future captions should indicate the lead 23 case number followed by the member case numbers as follows: 24 Lead Case: 2:24-cv-00473-DAD-JDP 25 Member Case: 2:24-cv-01231-DAD-JDP 26 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced 27 cases; and 28 ///// 1 7. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate adjustment in the 2 assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _May 14, 2024 Dab A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28