Opinion
No. CV-10-984-PHX-ROS, No. CV-10-986-PHX-ROS, No. CV-10-1259-PHX-ROS, No. CV-10-2552-PHX-ROS, No. CV-10-2553-PHX-ROS.
May 12, 2011
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R R") regarding a Motion to Consolidate in CV-10-984. (Doc. 48). For the following reasons, the R R will be adopted in full.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has approximately ten civil rights suits pending against a variety of defendants. Plaintiff's suits stem from his detention in the Florence Detention Center and the Pinal County Jail. The defendants in the various suits include numerous Pinal County officials as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. The Pinal County officials filed a motion to consolidate, asking the Court to consolidate CV-10-986 and CV-10-1259 with CV-10-984. (Doc. 41). Magistrate Judge Irwin filed a R R recommending the motion to consolidate be denied. The Pinal County officials filed objections to the R R. (Doc. 49). The Pinal County officials later filed a second motion to consolidate asking the Court to consolidate CV-10-2552 and CV-10-2553 with CV-10-984.
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
A district court "must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court need review only those portions objected to by a party, meaning a court can adopt without further review all unobjected to portions. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
II. Consolidation is Not Appropriate
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate "actions involving a common question of law or fact." This rule grants courts the Court " broad discretion" to determine whether consolidation is appropriate. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). "In determining whether or not to consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice." Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quotation omitted). See also Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496 (1933) (consolidation is appropriate "as a matter of convenience and economy in administration"). Here, the relevant factors weigh against consolidation.
Plaintiff's suits may involve some common questions of law and fact in that they all stem from his treatment while detained in the Florence Detention Center and the Pinal County Jail. But the suits involve different events, often different defendants, and often different types of claims. Judicial convenience would not be served by consolidating these suits. As Magistrate Judge Irwin pointed out, consolidating Plaintiff's suits would likely result in "a completely unwieldy case." (Doc. 48 at 7). Moreover, consolidating the suits "would likely cause greater delay and expense than it would avoid." (Doc. 48 at 7-8). The R R will be adopted in full.
The R R also addressed the Pinal Officials' request to sever certain claims. Having reviewed the issue de novo, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Irwin that "[s]evering actions poses special problems in pleadings, particularly if amendments are sought." (Doc. 48 at 8). Severance is not appropriate.
After the R R on the first motion to consolidate was filed, Defendants filed a second motion to consolidate. The same analysis applies to that request as to the first request. Consolidation would be a greater burden on the Court and significantly increase the likelihood of delay and confusion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) in CV-10-984 is ADOPTED. The Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 41) in CV-10-984 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 50) in CV-10-984 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-986 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 39) in CV-10-1259 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 18) in CV-10-2552 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 27) in CV-10-2553 is DENIED.
Dated this 11th day of May, 2011.