Ou-Young v. Stone ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG, Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 LAWRENCE E. STONE, Santa Clara County Assessor; JEANETTE TONINI, 11 Senior Assessment Clerk; and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 12 Defendants. 13 ___________________________________ 14 KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG, Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. SUA SPONTE ORDER 17 CONSOLIDATING CASES LAWRENCE E. STONE, Santa Clara 18 County Assessor; JEANETTE TONINI, Senior Assessment Clerk; and COUNTY OF 19 SANTA CLARA, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 The Court has reviewed the complaints in Case Nos. 19-cv-07000-BLF and 19-cv-07231- 24 BLF and sua sponte consolidates the two above-captioned actions brought by Plaintiff Kuang-Bao 25 P. Ou-Young against Defendants County of Santa Clara, County Assessor Lawrence E. Stone, and 26 Senior Assessment Clerk Jeanette Tonini. In both actions, Plaintiff asserts that his spouse 27 transferred her interest in their residence to Plaintiff; the County assessor’s office unlawfully 1 County assessor’s office has declined to restore Plaintiff's homeowner’s exemption since 2 September 10, 2019. The only material difference between the two actions is that Plaintiff named 3 || District Judge Edward J. Davila as a defendant in Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, but not as a 4 defendant in Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF. However, Judge Davila has been dismissed from Case 5 || No. 19-cv-07000-BLF. The two actions now assert essentially the same claims against the same 6 || defendants. 7 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may... 8 consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad discretion under this 9 |} rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 10 || for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to 11 consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 12 || for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 13 Apr. 28, 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 Because Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF and Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF are based on the 3 15 same facts, and assert substantially the same claims against the same defendants, the Court finds a 16 || that consolidation of the actions would further judicial economy. Consolidation will not cause 3 17 delay or prejudice to the parties, as both cases are at a very early stage. Accordingly, Case No. 18 19-cv-07000-BLF and Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF are HEREBY CONSOLIDATED. The 19 consolidated action shall proceed under Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, and Case No. 19-cv-07231- 20 || BLF shall be closed. 21 IV. ORDER 22 (1) Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF and Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF are HEREBY 23 CONSOLIDATED; 24 (2) The consolidated action shall proceed under Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF; and 25 (3) Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF shall be closed. hon armen) 27 Dated: December 5, 2019 Me BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge