David M. Routt, Jr. v. Henrik Fisker

C.D. California

David M. Routt, Jr. v. Henrik Fisker

DecidedMarch 27, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00627

StatusUnknown

This text of David M. Routt, Jr. v. Henrik Fisker (David M. Routt, Jr. v. Henrik Fisker) 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

David M. Routt, Jr. v. Henrik Fisker, (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 DAVID M. ROUTT, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-00627-FLA (KSx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH GEORGE 14 JENETOPULOS, ET AL., V. HENRIK 15 HENRIK FISKER, FISKER, ET AL., 2:24-CV-09760-FLA (KSX) AND STUART EGGERTSEN V. 16 Defendant. HENRIK FISKER, CASE NO. 2:25- 17 CV-00236-FLA (KSX)

18 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 California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams 6 | Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (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 George Jenetopulos, et al., v. Henrik Fisker, et al., Case 13 | No. 2:24-cv-09760-FLA (KSx) (“Jenetopulos Action”) and Stuart Eggertsen v. Henrik 14 | Fisker, Case No. 2:25-cv-00236-FLA (KSx) (“Eggersten Action”) outweighs any 15 | potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice, as each action asserts the same claims 16 | against similar defendants. 17 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only 18 | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated 19 | with the Jenetopulos Action and the Eggertsen Action. Responses shall be limited to 20 | five (5) pages in length. Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions 21 | without further notice. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 || Dated: March 27, 2025 %6 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 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 DAVID M. ROUTT, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-00627-FLA (KSx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH GEORGE 14 JENETOPULOS, ET AL., V. HENRIK 15 HENRIK FISKER, FISKER, ET AL., 2:24-CV-09760-FLA (KSX) AND STUART EGGERTSEN V. 16 Defendant. HENRIK FISKER, CASE NO. 2:25- 17 CV-00236-FLA (KSX)

18 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 California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams 6 | Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (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 George Jenetopulos, et al., v. Henrik Fisker, et al., Case 13 | No. 2:24-cv-09760-FLA (KSx) (“Jenetopulos Action”) and Stuart Eggertsen v. Henrik 14 | Fisker, Case No. 2:25-cv-00236-FLA (KSx) (“Eggersten Action”) outweighs any 15 | potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice, as each action asserts the same claims 16 | against similar defendants. 17 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing only 18 | within fourteen (14) days of this Order why this action should not be consolidated 19 | with the Jenetopulos Action and the Eggertsen Action. Responses shall be limited to 20 | five (5) pages in length. Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions 21 | without further notice. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 || Dated: March 27, 2025 %6 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 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)

David M. Routt, Jr. v. Henrik Fisker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-m-routt-jr-v-henrik-fisker-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack