Diana Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc.

C.D. California

Diana Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc.

DecidedMarch 5, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-05349

StatusUnknown

This text of Diana Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc. (Diana Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc.) 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

Diana Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc., (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 DIANA STINNETT, Case No. 2:24-cv-05349-FLA (BFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH TAMORA 14 WHITFIELD V. EXP REALTY OF EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, 15 INC., et al., CALIFORNIA, INC., CASE NO. 2:24- CV-09312-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendants.

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 Tamora Whitfield vy. EXP Realty of California, Inc., 13 || Case No. 2:24-cv-09312-FLA (BFMx) (“Whitfield Action’) outweighs any potential 14 | for delay, confusion, and prejudice, as each action asserts claims against the same 15 | defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, 16 | et seq. 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 Whitfield Action. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. 20 || Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions without further notice. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: March 5, 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 DIANA STINNETT, Case No. 2:24-cv-05349-FLA (BFMx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH TAMORA 14 WHITFIELD V. EXP REALTY OF EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, 15 INC., et al., CALIFORNIA, INC., CASE NO. 2:24- CV-09312-FLA (BFMx) 16 Defendants.

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 Tamora Whitfield vy. EXP Realty of California, Inc., 13 || Case No. 2:24-cv-09312-FLA (BFMx) (“Whitfield Action’) outweighs any potential 14 | for delay, confusion, and prejudice, as each action asserts claims against the same 15 | defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, 16 | et seq. 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 Whitfield Action. Responses shall be limited to five (5) pages in length. 20 || Failure to respond may result in consolidation of the actions without further notice. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: March 5, 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)

Diana Stinnett v. EXP Realty of California, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diana-stinnett-v-exp-realty-of-california-inc-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack