Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company

C.D. California

Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company

DecidedMay 27, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-10259

StatusUnknown

This text of Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company (Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL ELMORE, JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-10259-FLA (BFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH CECIL 14 ELMORE, JR. V. STARBUCKS 15 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, CORPORATION, CASE NO. 2:25-CV- 00768-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendant.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a 3 | common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to 4 | consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 5 | Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams Apple, 6 | Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“trial courts may consolidate cases sua 7 | sponte”) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the 8 | interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and 9 | prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 10 | 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). 11 Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from 12 | consolidating this action with Cecil Elmore, Jr. vy. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 13 | 2:25-cv-00768-FLA (BFMx) (“E/more IP’) outweigh any potential for delay, 14 | confusion, and prejudice, as Plaintiff asserts the same or similar claims against the 15 || same Defendant in each action. 16 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only 17 | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated 18 | with Elmore I. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. Failure to 19 || respond timely may result in the consolidation of the actions without further notice 20 | from the court. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 | Dated: May 27, 2025 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 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 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL ELMORE, JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-10259-FLA (BFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH CECIL 14 ELMORE, JR. V. STARBUCKS 15 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, CORPORATION, CASE NO. 2:25-CV- 00768-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendant.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a 3 | common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to 4 | consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 5 | Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams Apple, 6 | Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (“trial courts may consolidate cases sua 7 | sponte”) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the 8 | interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and 9 | prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 10 | 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). 11 Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from 12 | consolidating this action with Cecil Elmore, Jr. vy. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 13 | 2:25-cv-00768-FLA (BFMx) (“E/more IP’) outweigh any potential for delay, 14 | confusion, and prejudice, as Plaintiff asserts the same or similar claims against the 15 || same Defendant in each action. 16 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only 17 | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated 18 | with Elmore I. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. Failure to 19 || respond timely may result in the consolidation of the actions without further notice 20 | from the court. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 | Dated: May 27, 2025 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 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)

Paxonet Communications, Inc. v. Transwitch Corp.

303 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (N.D. California, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecil-elmore-jr-v-starbucks-coffee-company-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack