Reams v. Boulder City

Opinion

3 * * *

4 SUSAN REAMS, Case No. 2:25-cv-01315-APG-DJA

5 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 6 v.

8 Defendant

9 ___________________________________

Plaintiff, 11 v. Case No. 2:25-cv-01326-GMN-MDC

13 Defendant

14 15 These two cases come before the court on plaintiff Susan Reams’ motions for clarification and 16 to consolidate in cases 2:25-cv-01315-APG-DJA and 2:25-cv-01326-GMN-MDC. Courts may 17 consolidate actions that involve common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The district 18 court has broad discretion over whether to order consolidation, and in doing so “weighs the saving of 19 time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 20 would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). The judges to whom these 21 actions are assigned have reviewed the motions and, exercising their discretion, the undersigned 22 judges find that consolidation of these actions would aid in the efficient disposition of these cases. 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Susan Reams’ motions for clarification and 24 to consolidate (ECF Nos. 12, 16 in 2:25-cv-01315-APG-DJA and ECF Nos. 8, 12 in 2:25-cv- 25 01326-GMN-MDC) are GRANTED. Case Nos. 2:25-cv-01315-APG-DJA and 2:25-cv-01326- 26 GMN-MDC are consolidated, with Case No. 2:25-cv-01315-APG-DJA serving as the lead 27 case. All further filings in these cases shall be filed in the lead case. ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case No. 2:25-cv-01326-GMN-MDC is reassigned to 2 Judges Andrew Gordon and Daniel Albregts for all further proceedings. 3 DATED thje28th day of July, 2025. 2 5 ah NAVARRO ANDREW P.GORDON ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE = CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28