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

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASHLEY VEGA, Case No. 1:26-cv-02306-JLT-CDB

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

Case No. 1:26-cv-02307-JLT-CDB

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

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

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