Julianna Lacoste v. County of Los Angeles, et al.; Julianna Lacoste v. Ryan Bergner, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-04166
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-4917-DMG (AGRx) Date CV 24-4166-DMG (PDx) October 7, 2025

Title Julianna Lacoste v. County of Los Angeles, et al. Page 1 of 1 Julianna Lacoste v. Ryan Bergner, et al.

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEREK DAVIS NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED

On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff Julianna Lacoste filed an action against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva (in his individual and official capacities), Deputy Sheriffs Nathan Deboom, Aaron Escobedo, Jose Hurtado, Mikah Lopez, Charles McDaniel, Juan Meza, Michael Mileski, Ramon Munoz, Rovert Okamoto, Jose Ramirez, Mark Reyes, Adrian Ruiz, Spencer Zagurski, and Does 1 through 10. [No. CV 23-4917-DMG (AGFx) (“Lacoste 1”) Doc. # 1.] On May 18, 2024, Plaintiff Julianna Lacoste filed an action against Defendants Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs Ryan Bergner and Laina Do and Does 1-10. [No. CV 24-4166-DMG (PDx) (“Lacoste 2”) Doc. # 1.] Both actions concern claims arising from the same protest event that occurred in South Los Angeles on September 8, 2020.

The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than October 17, 2025 why the two cases should not be consolidated under Lacoste 1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (A court may consolidate actions pending before it if they “involve a common question of law or fact.”); see also Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (district courts have broad discretion whether or not to consolidate actions) (citing Investor’s Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (trial courts may consolidate cases sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)). The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint response to the OSC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.