From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collins v. Spencer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 20, 2017
Case No.: 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017)

Opinion

Case No.: 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC)

12-20-2017

JOSEPH A. COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, Defendant.


Related Case: 17-CV-1724 JLS (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE

(17-CV-1723: ECF No. 8) (17-CV-1724: ECF No. 9)

Presently before the Court are the Parties' Joint Motions to Consolidate Cases and File an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed two lawsuits, 17-CV-1723, and 17-CV-1724. The cases have been deemed related and both have been assigned to this Court. The Parties have filed the present Motion requesting the Court consolidate the two matters. The Joint Motion was filed in both matters, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 8; 17-CV-1724, ECF No. 9.)

Consolidation of cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which provides as follows:

(a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may:

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;

(2) consolidate the actions; or

(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). This rule affords courts "broad discretion" to consolidate cases pending in the same district, either upon motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). "The Court considers a number of factors in analyzing the appropriateness of consolidation, including judicial economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution of the case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to a party opposing consolidation." First Mercury Ins. Co. v. SQI, Inc., No. C13-2109 JLR, 2014 WL 496685, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 6, 2014) (citing 8 Moore's Federal Practice § 42.10 (Matthew Bender ed. 3d Ed. 2017)).

Here, the Court finds consolidation will serve the interests of judicial economy by eliminating the need to file separate motions in each case on similar issues. Further, there is no prejudice, as shown by the fact that the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motions and consolidates this case for all purposes with Collins v. Spencer, 17-CV-1724 JLS (KSC). All future pleadings SHALL bear the case number 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC). Further, the Parties state Plaintiff has agreed to file an Amended Complaint; this SHALL be filed in 17-CV-1723 within 45 days of the date this Order is electronically docketed.

CONCLUSION

The Joint Motions to Consolidate are GRANTED, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 8; 17-CV-1724, ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES AS MOOT Defendant's prior Motions to Consolidate, (17-CV-1723, ECF No. 7, and 17-CV-1724, ECF No. 8) and VACATES the hearing set for February 1, 2018. The Clerk SHALL close the file for 17-CV-1724.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 20, 2017

/s/_________

Hon. Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Collins v. Spencer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 20, 2017
Case No.: 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017)
Case details for

Collins v. Spencer

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH A. COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD V. SPENCER, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 20, 2017

Citations

Case No.: 17-CV-1723 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017)