Kelly v. City of Poway ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN T. KELLY, Case No.: 18-CV-2615 JLS (AHG) Case No.: 19-CV-1803 JLS (AHG) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER: (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; AND 14 CITY OF POWAY, a municipal (2) STAYING RELATED CASE corporation, 15 Defendant. 16 (18-CV-2615: ECF No. 38) 17 (19-CV-1803: ECF No. 7) 18 19 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motions to Consolidate Cases. 20 Plaintiff Kevin T. Kelly has filed two complaints against Defendant City of Poway. 21 Plaintiff filed the first lawsuit, Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:18-cv-2615 JLS 22 (AHG) on November 5, 2018. Mot. at 2. On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second 23 action, Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:19-cv-1803 BAS (BGS). On September 24 23, 2019, the cases were deemed related and the second action was transferred to this Court. 25 Id. The present Motion followed after Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the second 26 action. Id. After reviewing the Parties’ contentions and the law, the Court finds 27 consolidation is appropriate and GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motions. 28 /// 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that “[i]f actions before the court 2 ||involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” This 3 affords courts “broad discretion” to consolidate cases pending in the same district, 4 ||either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 5 Cir. 1987). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the interest of 6 || judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by 7 ||consolidation.” In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices 8 || Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 490 (C.D. Cal. 2012). 9 Here, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of consolidation. The parties and 10 || legal issues in the two actions are identical, thus consolidation will serve the interests of 11 judicial convenience. Further, consolidation will alleviate any concern for inconsistent 12 || rulings in the cases. Finally, the Court finds there is no prejudice, as shown by the fact that 13 || the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint 14 || Motions and consolidates Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:18-CV-2615 JLS 15 ||(AHG) with Kevin T. Kelly v. City of Poway, Case No. 3:19-CV-1803 JLS (AHG). As 16 || stipulated by the Parties, all further pleadings SHALL BE FILED in the original action, 17 No. 3:18-CV-2615 JLS (AHG). The Court STAYS Case No. 3:19-CV-1803 JLS 18 ||(AHG). The Court will rule on the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and Motion 19 Amend Complaint (ECF No. 30) filed in the original action in a separate Order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 7, 2020 tt 22 jen Janis L. Sammartino 73 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28