Ashley Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al.; Lance Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al.

E.D. California

Ashley Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al.; Lance Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al.

DecidedJune 16, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-02306

StatusUnknown

This text of Ashley Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al.; Lance Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al. (Ashley Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al.; Lance Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashley Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al.; Lance Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASHLEY VEGA, Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION 13 v. CONSOLIDATING CASES PURSUANT TO RULE 42(a) 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., (Doc. 8) 15 Defendants.

16 Case No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB 17 LANCE MACK,

18 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING CASES PURSUANT TO 19 v. RULE 42(a)

20 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., (Doc. 11)

21 Defendants. 22 23 Relevant Background 24 On June 10, 2026, following its preliminary review of the pleadings in the earlier-filed action 25 (No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB) (the “Lead Action” or “Vega Action”) and the related action of Mack v. 26 City of Bakersfield, et al. (No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB) (the “Mack Action”), the Court concluded the 27 cases involve common questions of law or fact and that the saving of time and effort consolidation 28 would produce outweighs any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause. (Vega Action Doc. 1 7); (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (court 2 may consolidate actions sua sponte)). The Court therefore ordered that, no later than June 15, 2026, the 3 parties to these actions shall either file a stipulated request to consolidate the actions, or address in their 4 joint scheduling conference statement their respective positions regarding consolidation. Id. The Court 5 consolidated and reset the scheduling conferences in this action and the related Mack action to June 22, 6 2026, at 9:00 AM in Bakersfield (CDB) before the undersigned. Id. 7 Stipulated Requests to Consolidate 8 On June 15, 2026, the parties in the Lead Action and the related Mack Action filed a stipulated 9 request to consolidate the cases. (Vega Action Doc. 8); see (Mack Action Doc. 11). The parties 10 represent that the cases assert substantially the same claims and questions of fact and law and involve 11 the same witnesses. Id. at 2. The parties further represent that the complaints in these related actions 12 “are nearly identical and both name the same Defendants with the exception of Defendants Brandon 13 Carey and Christian Vargas-Flores who are only named in the Mack case[.]” Id. The parties therefore 14 stipulate and request the Court consolidate these actions for all purposes with the Vega case designated 15 as the Lead Case. Id. 16 Discussion 17 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, the court 18 may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate the actions; 19 and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The court has 20 “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is appropriate. See Garity v. 21 APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. 22 Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Typically, consolidation is a favored 23 procedure.” Blount v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 WL 24 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. 25 & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to consolidate 26 actions, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any 27 inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th 28 Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). ] Here, having considered the stipulation, the Court finds there are significant and substanti 2 common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under Rule 42(a). Moreover, the Court agre 3 || with the parties that the benefits of consolidation would serve the interests of judicial economy. 4 Conclusion and Order 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB, and Mack v. City 7 Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB, are CONSOLIDATED FOR AL 8 PURPOSES. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 9 2. The case identified as Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CD] 10 will be designated the Lead Case, and all further records and documents filed in this consolidate 11 action shall be filed therein (Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB). 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close member case Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Ca: 13 No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB. 14 4. As previously instructed, the parties SHALL appear via Zoom videoconference for tl 15 scheduling conference in this consolidated action on June 22, 2026, at 9:00 AM. See (Ves 16 Action Doc. 7). 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. pated: _ June 16, 2026 | Wr ba 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASHLEY VEGA, Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION 13 v. CONSOLIDATING CASES PURSUANT TO RULE 42(a) 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., (Doc. 8) 15 Defendants.

16 Case No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB 17 LANCE MACK,

18 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION CONSOLIDATING CASES PURSUANT TO 19 v. RULE 42(a)

20 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., (Doc. 11)

21 Defendants. 22 23 Relevant Background 24 On June 10, 2026, following its preliminary review of the pleadings in the earlier-filed action 25 (No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB) (the “Lead Action” or “Vega Action”) and the related action of Mack v. 26 City of Bakersfield, et al. (No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB) (the “Mack Action”), the Court concluded the 27 cases involve common questions of law or fact and that the saving of time and effort consolidation 28 would produce outweighs any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause. (Vega Action Doc. 1 7); (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (court 2 may consolidate actions sua sponte)). The Court therefore ordered that, no later than June 15, 2026, the 3 parties to these actions shall either file a stipulated request to consolidate the actions, or address in their 4 joint scheduling conference statement their respective positions regarding consolidation. Id. The Court 5 consolidated and reset the scheduling conferences in this action and the related Mack action to June 22, 6 2026, at 9:00 AM in Bakersfield (CDB) before the undersigned. Id. 7 Stipulated Requests to Consolidate 8 On June 15, 2026, the parties in the Lead Action and the related Mack Action filed a stipulated 9 request to consolidate the cases. (Vega Action Doc. 8); see (Mack Action Doc. 11). The parties 10 represent that the cases assert substantially the same claims and questions of fact and law and involve 11 the same witnesses. Id. at 2. The parties further represent that the complaints in these related actions 12 “are nearly identical and both name the same Defendants with the exception of Defendants Brandon 13 Carey and Christian Vargas-Flores who are only named in the Mack case[.]” Id. The parties therefore 14 stipulate and request the Court consolidate these actions for all purposes with the Vega case designated 15 as the Lead Case. Id. 16 Discussion 17 When multiple actions pending before a court involve common questions of law or fact, the court 18 may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters at issue in the actions; consolidate the actions; 19 and/or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The court has 20 “broad discretion” to determine whether and to what extent consolidation is appropriate. See Garity v. 21 APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. 22 Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Typically, consolidation is a favored 23 procedure.” Blount v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 1:19-cv-00578-AWI-SAB, 2019 WL 24 3943872, *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. 25 & Sales Practices Litig., 282 F.R.D. 486, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). In deciding whether to consolidate 26 actions, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any 27 inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th 28 Cir. 1984); Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2007). ] Here, having considered the stipulation, the Court finds there are significant and substanti 2 common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under Rule 42(a). Moreover, the Court agre 3 || with the parties that the benefits of consolidation would serve the interests of judicial economy. 4 Conclusion and Order 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB, and Mack v. City 7 Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB, are CONSOLIDATED FOR AL 8 PURPOSES. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 9 2. The case identified as Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CD] 10 will be designated the Lead Case, and all further records and documents filed in this consolidate 11 action shall be filed therein (Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB). 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close member case Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Ca: 13 No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB. 14 4. As previously instructed, the parties SHALL appear via Zoom videoconference for tl 15 scheduling conference in this consolidated action on June 22, 2026, at 9:00 AM. See (Ves 16 Action Doc. 7). 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. pated: _ June 16, 2026 | Wr ba 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In Re Adams Apple, Inc., Debtor. Robert C. Burchinal, Donald G. Ott, Meton G. Raine, Karen O. Raine, John Ruud, Richard H. Mason, Phyllis Mason, Richard Floren, Rachel Floren, Kenneth R. Irwin, Sharon Irwin, Richard J. Willsey and Cheri Ann Willsey, Plaintiffs v. Central Washington Bank, Bank of California v. Central Washington Bank

829 F.2d 1484 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Single Chip Systems Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp.

495 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (S.D. California, 2007)

Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org.

828 F.3d 848 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

282 F.R.D. 486 (C.D. California, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ashley Vega v. City of Bakersfield, et al.; Lance Mack v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashley-vega-v-city-of-bakersfield-et-al-lance-mack-v-city-of-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack