Opinion
CASE NO. 11-CV-2212-MMA-RBB Case No. 11-CV-0647-MMA(RBB)
10-04-2011
SYLVIA ANDERSON, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
[Doc. No. 40]
Plaintiff Sylvia Anderson and Defendant Office Depot, Inc. submitted a joint motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to consolidate this action with Eyad O. Akel, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Office Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 11-cv-0647-MMA (RBB) ("the Akel action").
A review of the complaints in the above-mentioned cases suggest consolidation is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). "[T]he threshold requirement for consolidation is whether the actions involve common facts or legal issues." United States v. County of Sacramento, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34111 *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005) (citing Yousefi v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1064-65 (C.D. Cal. 1999)).
In the present case, the parties aver that the Anderson action is related to the Akel action, as the actions allege substantially the same facts, purport to represent virtually the same putative class, and assert the same legal claims against the same defendants. Therefore, consolidation would preserve judicial and party resources and would prevent potential conflicting results and adjudications.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the parties' Joint Motion to consolidate and ORDERS as follows:
1. This action is consolidated with the Akel action, Case No. 11-cv-0647-MMA (RRB), for all purposes.
2. The Clerk of the Court promptly shall take all reasonable and necessary action to consolidate the cases. This Order and all further proceedings in the consolidated action shall be docketed under Case No. 11-cv-0647-MMA (RBB).
3. Plaintiffs shall file an amended consolidated complaint on or before October 11, 2011.
4. Defendant shall file an amended motion to dismiss on or before November 1, 2011.
5. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the motion to dismiss, on or before November 21, 2011.
6. Defendant shall file its reply, if any, on or before November 28, 2011.
7. The hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby set for December 5, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge