Rapp v. NaphCare Inc ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOHN RAPP, in his Personal Capacity and CASE NO. C21-05800-DGE 11 as Personal Representative of the Estate of NICHOLAS WINTON RAPP, deceased, et ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 al., MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 NAPHCARE INC., et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate this action with 18 Smith v. NaphCare, Case No. C22-05069. (Dkt. No. 42.) Defendants Kitsap County and 19 NaphCare oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Dkt. Nos. 45, 46.) 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides this Court with broad discretion to 21 consolidate cases that involve common questions of law or fact. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 22 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). In making this determination, the court must weigh “the 23 interest in judicial convenience against the potential delay, confusion and prejudice caused by 24 1 consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 303 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. 2 Cal. 2003) (citations omitted). “Consolidation is within the broad discretion of the district 3 court.” In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). “The moving party has 4 the burden of persuading the court that consolidation is proper.” Olaplex LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 5 2019 WL 9042542, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2019) (quotations omitted). 6 Plaintiffs seek to consolidate this action with Smith alleging both cases contain “identical 7 questions of both law and fact, involve overlapping witnesses, and implicate the Defendants’ 8 same policies, procedures and practices.” (Dkt. No. 42 at 2.) Each case arises out of the deaths 9 of inmates while in custody at the Kitsap County Jail. The Smith matter involves the death of 10 Jeanna Rogers (“Rogers”) on February 19, 2019 while this matter involves the death of Nicholas 11 Rapp (“Rapp”) on January 2, 2020. Both sets of Plaintiffs appear to allege similar claims against 12 Kitsap County, NaphCare, and their respective employees. 13 However, the two matters are factually distinct. The allegations in this matter revolve 14 around Rapp’s detention at the Kitsap County Jail between December 31, 2019 and January 2, 15 2020 and involve questions about his intake, screening, supervision, and possible mental health 16 treatment related to his use of drugs and alcohol. The allegations in Smith also involve issues 17 related to supervision but are more deeply focused on Rogers’ mental health treatment while 18 detained at the jail, including treatment at the jail sometime before October 2018, and treatment 19 between the end of October 2018 and the time of her death. 20 Though it might be concluded similar legal issues (and possibly some factual issues) are 21 presented in both matters, there likely are significantly different issues considering the length of 22 detention and the types of the interactions between the Defendants and Rogers. As a result, the 23 Court does not believe the potential benefits of consolidating pretrial matters justify 24 1 consolidation and that consolidation may lead to complications during discovery and motion 2 practice that are too difficult to assess at this time. 3 Accordingly, having considered the briefing and the remainder of the records in these 4 cases, the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. No. 42) is 5 DENIED. 6 Dated this 21st day of June 2022. 7 A 8 David G. Estudillo 9 U nited States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24