Opinion
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA Related Case No.: 1:13-CV-00850-A WI-GSA
2013-10-17
I.R., a minor, individually and as successor in interest to Raul Rosas and by and through her guardian ad litem, Claudia Nava; and H.R., a minor, individually and as successor in interest to Raul Rosas and by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Nora Nava, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FRESNO, a municipality; OFFICER MIGUEL ALVAREZ (#1351), an individual; OFFICER SAMMY ASHWORTH (#1011), an individual; OFFICER TROY MILLER (#1197), an individual; COUNTY OF FRESNO, a municipality; DEPUTY CHRISTIAN LIGHTNER (#6453), an individual; DEPUTY MANUEL FLORES (#4060), an individual; and DOES 6-10, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
AND MODIFYING SCHEDULING
ORDER
(Doc. 68)
On October 4, 2013, the parties stipulated to consolidate I.R., et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA, with the related case Rosas, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:13-CV-00850-AWI-GSA. (Doc. 68). The Court has considered the consolidation request and adopts the stipulation.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
The purpose of consolidation under Rule 42(a) is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of proceedings and effort. See Team Enterprises., LLC v. Western Inv. Real Estate Trust, 2008 WL 4712759 at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2008). Consolidation of cases also guards against the risk of inconsistent adjudications. Id. The Court has broad discretion to order consolidation of cases pending in the same district. See Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court or Central Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, both actions filed by all four Plaintiffs, H.R., I.R. and Raul and Eva Rosas, name the same defendants and involve the death of Raul Rosas. Similarly, both actions raise essentially the same issues of fact and law. Consolidation will not only promote judicial efficiency, but it will prevent inconsistent outcomes and is not prejudicial to the parties. As such, consolidation is appropriate.
Based on the parties' stipulation, the Scheduling Order in I.R.., et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA (Doc. No. 24), will be the controlling scheduling order and is modified as follows:
The parties submitted two sets of proposed dates for the modified scheduling order, however, neither stipulation took into consideration the appropriate spacing of dates as set forth in this Court's minute order issued on October 11, 2013 (Doc. 69). Therefore, some of the proposed dates were modified by the Court.
New Date
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off February 28, 2014 Expert Disclosure March 28, 2014 Supplemental Expert Disclosure April 25, 2014 Expert Discovery Cut-Off May 16, 2014 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing May 23, 2014 Dispositive Motion Filing July 18, 2014 Pretrial Conference Sept. 18, 2014 at 8:30 before AWI in Courtroom 2 Trial Dec. 2, 2014 at 8:30 before AWI in Courtoom 2
Additionally, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, once consolidated, the depositions and written discovery already served, responded to, and/or completed in each related case will have the same force and effect as if they had been taken or served and/or responded to in the other related case. Finally, the depositions of parties and witnesses will occur only once for the purpose of both related cases, except that Defendants may depose Raul Rosas, Eva Rosas, Claudia Nava, and/or Nora Nava a second time on the issue of damages claimed by Raul Rosas and Eva Rosas only. Plaintiffs reserve their right to object to a second deposition of Raul Rosas, Eva Rosas, Claudia Nava, and/or Nora Nava on any other basis, including duplication of questions and issues already asked.
Based on the above, the Court ORDERS that:
1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to consolidate I.R., et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA with the related case Rosas, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case Number 1:13-CV-00850-AWI-GSA. Insofar as Case Number 1:12-CV-00558-AWI-GSA was the first action filed with the court, it will be considered the lead case. The Clerk of the Court IS DIRECTED to close Case Number 1:13-CV-00850-AWI-GSA. The court will construe the consolidated cases as one action.
2. The parties SHALL IDENTIFY all future pleadings by the case number of the lead case.
3. This Court's Scheduling Order in the lead case issued on September 13, 2012 (Doc. No. 24) is modified as outlined above. All other dates and orders contained in the Scheduling Order issued on September 13, 2012 (Doc. No. 24) remain in full force and effect. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE