Hart v. Perkins

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 10, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00312
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CODY HART et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-309 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

12 v.

13 RONALD WESEN et al.,

14 Defendants.

15 CODY HART et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-312 MJP

16 Plaintiffs,

17 v.

18 SANDRA PERKINS et al.,

Defendants. 19 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-311 MJP CODY HART et al., 20 Plaintiffs 21 v. 22 RICHARD WEYRICH et al., 23 Defendants. 24 1 2 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Notice of Related Cases., which the 3 Court interprets as a Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. No. 11.) Having reviewed the Motion, 4 Plaintiffs’ complaints filed in Hart et al. v. Perkins et al., 2:23-cv-312; Hart et al. v. Weyrich et

5 al., 2:23-cv-311, and Plaintiffs Opposition to the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion and 6 ORDERS the above-captioned cases be consolidated for all purposes. 7 The Plaintiffs in the three different actions filed against various Skagit County 8 employees. Under Rule 42(a), the Court may consolidate cases that involve common questions 9 of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court enjoys broad discretion in making this 10 determination. See Inv'rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 11 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court usually considers several factors in analyzing consolidation, including 12 judicial economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution of the case, whether separate 13 cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential prejudice to a party opposing. See 9 14 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2383 (3rd ed.

15 2020). 16 Consolidation is appropriate here given the three actions present common questions of 17 law and fact and there are substantial efficiencies to be gained. All three actions involve claims 18 that Skagit County employees vacated their office because their bond was not timely deposited 19 with the Skagit County Clerk. And Defendants are all represented by Skagit County Prosecuting 20 Attorney’s Office. Consolidation for all purposes will further conserve party and judicial 21 resources. As such the Court GRANTS the Motion and consolidates all three actions. 22 All filings in this consolidated action shall be filed on the docket of the initial case before 23 this Court (C23-309) with the following caption:

24 1 CODY HART et al., CASE NO. C23-309 MJP 2 Plaintiffs, 3 v. 4 RONALD WESEN, et al., 5 Defendants. 6 7 The Clerk is directed to file this Order in all three cases and then administratively close 8 the following related cases: (1) C23-312 MJP; (2) C23-311 MJP. 9 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 10 Dated April 10, 2023 11 A 12 Marsha J. Pechman 13 United States Senior District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24