RODNEY S. DIGGS, Esq. (SBN 274459) rdiggs@imwlaw.com IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT 444 S. Flower Street Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 489-0028 Fax: (213) 489-0552 Attorneys for Plaintiff TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, CASE NO.: 1:18−cv−01512−LJO−JLT an individual ) Plaintiff, ) AMENDED ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE ) CASES AND MODIFY THE NASH- vs. ) PERRY SCHEDULING ORDER ) ALEJANDRO PATINO, and DOES 1-10, ) Inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) )
TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: The parties, TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, Plaintiff in the matter of Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al. Case No. 1:18-CV-01512-LJO-JLT, Jason Okamoto and Z.S., Plaintiffs in the matter of Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-01125-DAD-JLT, and CITY OF BAKERSFIELD and OFFICER ALEJANDRO PATINO, Defendants in both matters, by and through their respective counsel of record, have conferred and hereby stipulate to consolidate cases Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al. and Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al. pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Parties also hereby stipulate to continue trial from January 12, 2021 to July 13, 2021. 1 JOINT STIPULATION WHEREAS, presently pending in this Court are two related actions identified below: 1. Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:18-CV-01512-LJO-JLT “Nash-Perry;” and 2. Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:19-CV-01125-JLO-JLT (“Okamoto”); WHEREAS, both cases arise out of the same incident which occurred on April 19, 2018; WHEREAS, Decedent’s mother Tametria Nash-Perry filed her initial complaint on October 31, 2018, asserting constitutional claims on her own behalf as well as constitutional, state law and survivorship claims on behalf of Christopher Okamoto (“Decedent”) as his mother. Plaintiff Nash-Perry also alleges she has the right to recover as successor in interest to Decedent and has named Decedent’s father Jason Okamoto as a nominal defendant in her operative complaint; WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019, Decedent’s father Jason Okamoto (“Mr. Okamoto”) and alleged child Z.S. filed their Complaint for Damages against Defendants alleging constitutional claims on their own behalf and also assert state law and survivorship claims on behalf Decedent, both in the individual capacity and as successors in interest to Decedent; WHEREAS, Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to consolidate actions pending before it if those actions involve a “common question of law or fact” and a Court may consider several factors that would affect the litigation including the burden on parties, witnesses, judicial resources, the risk of inconsistent adjudications, the potential for prejudice, and the risk of delaying trial. Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2nd Cir. 1990); Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993); Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350 (2nd Cir. 1993); Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 1989); 2 WHEREAS, the Parties now seek to consolidate the above related actions pursuant to F.R.C.P. 42 because each action asserts substantially the same claims and raise substantially the same questions of fact and law regarding liability and damages; WHEREAS, the instant actions of Nash-Perry and Okamoto have both been properly filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California and involve the exact same facts and circumstances, share many of the same causes of action, would require the same legal analysis, and as such, satisfy the only requirement for consolidation under Rule 42(a); WHEREAS, consolidating these two cases would clearly serve the interests of justice: increases judicial efficiency, avoids duplicative evidence, procedures, and inconsistent adjudications, precludes waste, and alleviates potential burdens to the court and all parties involved. Furthermore, since both Nash-Perry and Okamoto allege survivorship actions, where there can be only one, this will allow a final determination as to the propriety of such claims by each Plaintiff at the same time thus further substantiating the appropriateness of consolidating these actions; WHEREAS, trial in the Nash-Perry matter is scheduled for January 12, 2021 based on the Scheduling Order [Dkt. 19] WHEREAS, the Scheduling Conference in Okamoto is currently scheduled to take place on November 13, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. and thus, a Scheduling Order has not been entered; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that additional time will be needed in order to engage in meaningful discovery efforts and litigate this matter in light of the requested consolidation. STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties hereto through their respective attorneys of record: 1. The Nash-Perry and Okamoto cases will be consolidated; 2. The Scheduling Order in Nash-Perry shall be modified as follows and shall govern the consolidated case as follows: 3 DEADLINE/HEARING CURRENT REQUESTED Initial Disclosures None 11/14/2019 (Okamoto v. City of Bakersfield) Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff 03/30/2020 11/25/2020 Expert Witness Disclosure 04/13/2020 12/07/2020 Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure 05/11/2020 01/04/2021 Expert Discovery Cutoff 06/08/2020 01/19/2021 File Non-Dispositive Motions 06/22/2020 02/03/2021 Hear Non-Dispositive Motions 07/20/2020 03/05/2021 File Dispositive Motions 08/05/2020 03/15/2021 Hear Dispositive Motions 09/16/2020 04/26/2021 Settlement Conference 01/10/2020 05/14/2021 Pre-Trial Conference 11/12/2020 06/14/2021 Trial 01/12/2021 07/13/2021
3. The Scheduling Conference in Okamoto currently scheduled to take place on November 13, 2019 at 8:30 a.m shall be vacated. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 12, 2019 IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT /s/ Rodney S. Diggs By:____________________________________ RODNEY S. DIGGS Attorney for Plaintiff Nash-Perry
Dated: November 12, 2019 CHAIN COHN STILES /s/ Matt Clark By:____________________________________ MATT CLARK Attorney for Plaintiffs Okamato and Z.S. 4
Dated: November 12, 2019 MARDEROSIAN & COHEN /s/ Heather S. Cohen By:_______________________________________ Attorney for Defendants above-named.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RODNEY S. DIGGS, Esq. (SBN 274459) rdiggs@imwlaw.com IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT 444 S. Flower Street Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 489-0028 Fax: (213) 489-0552 Attorneys for Plaintiff TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, CASE NO.: 1:18−cv−01512−LJO−JLT an individual ) Plaintiff, ) AMENDED ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE ) CASES AND MODIFY THE NASH- vs. ) PERRY SCHEDULING ORDER ) ALEJANDRO PATINO, and DOES 1-10, ) Inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) )
TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: The parties, TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, Plaintiff in the matter of Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al. Case No. 1:18-CV-01512-LJO-JLT, Jason Okamoto and Z.S., Plaintiffs in the matter of Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-01125-DAD-JLT, and CITY OF BAKERSFIELD and OFFICER ALEJANDRO PATINO, Defendants in both matters, by and through their respective counsel of record, have conferred and hereby stipulate to consolidate cases Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al. and Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al. pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Parties also hereby stipulate to continue trial from January 12, 2021 to July 13, 2021. 1 JOINT STIPULATION WHEREAS, presently pending in this Court are two related actions identified below: 1. Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:18-CV-01512-LJO-JLT “Nash-Perry;” and 2. Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:19-CV-01125-JLO-JLT (“Okamoto”); WHEREAS, both cases arise out of the same incident which occurred on April 19, 2018; WHEREAS, Decedent’s mother Tametria Nash-Perry filed her initial complaint on October 31, 2018, asserting constitutional claims on her own behalf as well as constitutional, state law and survivorship claims on behalf of Christopher Okamoto (“Decedent”) as his mother. Plaintiff Nash-Perry also alleges she has the right to recover as successor in interest to Decedent and has named Decedent’s father Jason Okamoto as a nominal defendant in her operative complaint; WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019, Decedent’s father Jason Okamoto (“Mr. Okamoto”) and alleged child Z.S. filed their Complaint for Damages against Defendants alleging constitutional claims on their own behalf and also assert state law and survivorship claims on behalf Decedent, both in the individual capacity and as successors in interest to Decedent; WHEREAS, Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to consolidate actions pending before it if those actions involve a “common question of law or fact” and a Court may consider several factors that would affect the litigation including the burden on parties, witnesses, judicial resources, the risk of inconsistent adjudications, the potential for prejudice, and the risk of delaying trial. Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2nd Cir. 1990); Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir. 1993); Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350 (2nd Cir. 1993); Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 1989); 2 WHEREAS, the Parties now seek to consolidate the above related actions pursuant to F.R.C.P. 42 because each action asserts substantially the same claims and raise substantially the same questions of fact and law regarding liability and damages; WHEREAS, the instant actions of Nash-Perry and Okamoto have both been properly filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California and involve the exact same facts and circumstances, share many of the same causes of action, would require the same legal analysis, and as such, satisfy the only requirement for consolidation under Rule 42(a); WHEREAS, consolidating these two cases would clearly serve the interests of justice: increases judicial efficiency, avoids duplicative evidence, procedures, and inconsistent adjudications, precludes waste, and alleviates potential burdens to the court and all parties involved. Furthermore, since both Nash-Perry and Okamoto allege survivorship actions, where there can be only one, this will allow a final determination as to the propriety of such claims by each Plaintiff at the same time thus further substantiating the appropriateness of consolidating these actions; WHEREAS, trial in the Nash-Perry matter is scheduled for January 12, 2021 based on the Scheduling Order [Dkt. 19] WHEREAS, the Scheduling Conference in Okamoto is currently scheduled to take place on November 13, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. and thus, a Scheduling Order has not been entered; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that additional time will be needed in order to engage in meaningful discovery efforts and litigate this matter in light of the requested consolidation. STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties hereto through their respective attorneys of record: 1. The Nash-Perry and Okamoto cases will be consolidated; 2. The Scheduling Order in Nash-Perry shall be modified as follows and shall govern the consolidated case as follows: 3 DEADLINE/HEARING CURRENT REQUESTED Initial Disclosures None 11/14/2019 (Okamoto v. City of Bakersfield) Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff 03/30/2020 11/25/2020 Expert Witness Disclosure 04/13/2020 12/07/2020 Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosure 05/11/2020 01/04/2021 Expert Discovery Cutoff 06/08/2020 01/19/2021 File Non-Dispositive Motions 06/22/2020 02/03/2021 Hear Non-Dispositive Motions 07/20/2020 03/05/2021 File Dispositive Motions 08/05/2020 03/15/2021 Hear Dispositive Motions 09/16/2020 04/26/2021 Settlement Conference 01/10/2020 05/14/2021 Pre-Trial Conference 11/12/2020 06/14/2021 Trial 01/12/2021 07/13/2021
3. The Scheduling Conference in Okamoto currently scheduled to take place on November 13, 2019 at 8:30 a.m shall be vacated. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 12, 2019 IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT /s/ Rodney S. Diggs By:____________________________________ RODNEY S. DIGGS Attorney for Plaintiff Nash-Perry
Dated: November 12, 2019 CHAIN COHN STILES /s/ Matt Clark By:____________________________________ MATT CLARK Attorney for Plaintiffs Okamato and Z.S. 4
Dated: November 12, 2019 MARDEROSIAN & COHEN /s/ Heather S. Cohen By:_______________________________________ Attorney for Defendants above-named.
ORDER Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS: 1. Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:18-cv-01512 LJO JLT and Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:19-cv- 01125 LJO JLT are CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES. The new case number for all filings is 1:18-cv-01512 LJO JLT; 2. The parties SHALL comply with the case schedule issued in Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield, et al., and which is modified as follows: a. The parties SHALL make their initial disclosure no later than November 14, 2019; b. The parties SHALL complete all non-expert discovery no later than November 25, 2020 and all expert discovery no later than January 19, 2021. The parties SHALL disclose their experts no later than December 7, 2020 and any rebuttal experts no later than January 4, 2021; c. The parties SHALL file non-dispositive motions, if any, no later than February 3, 2021. These motions will be heard no later than March 5, 2021; d. The parties SHALL file dispositive motions, if any, no later than March 15, 2021. These motions will be heard no later than April 29, 2021; e. The settlement conference is CONTINUED to May 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. f. The pretrial conference is CONTINUED to June 24, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.; 5 g. The trial is CONTINUED to August 24, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. 3. With the stipulation to consolidate the matters, the motion to consolidate (Doc. 35) filed in the Nash-Perry matter is MOOT; 4. With the consolidation for all purposes, the motion to join heirs (Doc. 8) filed in the Okamoto matter is MOOT; 5. The Scheduling Conference in Okamoto, et al. v. City of Bakersfield, et al. Case No. 1:19-cv-01125 LJO JLT currently set on November 13, 2019 is VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE