Seever v. City of Modesto

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 14, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01373
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID ROBERT SEEVER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01373-NONE-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES, 13 CITY OF MODESTO, et al., WITHDRAW MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR ABATEMENT, AND FOR 14 Defendants. PLAINTIFF TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 (ECF No. 14) 16 Case No. 1:21-cv-1565-NONE-EPG 17

18 19 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ proposed stipulation to consolidate cases, 20 withdraw the pending motion to dismiss and motion for abatement, and for Plaintiff to file a 21 consolidated amended complaint. (ECF No. 14). As discussed below, the Court will grant the 22 request to withdrawal the motion to stay, will consolidate this case and Case No. 1:21-cv-01102- 23 NONE-EPG, and will enter a case schedule. 24 The parties stipulate to consolidating this action with 1:21-cv-01565-NONE-EPG because 25 both cases involve the same officer-involved shooting occurring on December 29, 2020, the 26 parties in each case are similar, and the claims are similar. Moreover, given the proposed 27 consolidation, the parties stipulate to the withdrawal of the pending motion to dismiss and motion 28 for abatement (ECF Nos. 8, 9) and to Plaintiff filing a consolidated amended complaint no later 1 than January 14, 2022, with all Defendant’s responses due thirty days thereafter. 2 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the 3 court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or 4 all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to 5 avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the saving of time 6 and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 7 would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). “Motions to consolidate 8 are considered non-dispositive and are within the pre-trial authority of the magistrate judge.” 9 Jackson v. Berkey, No. 3:19-CV-06101-BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 1974247, at *2 n.2 (W.D. Wash. 10 Apr. 24, 2020). 11 Here, the Court determines that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar 12 parties, claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs 13 and duplication of proceedings. 14 Accordingly, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 14), IT IS ORDERED as 15 follows: 16 1. This action and Case No. 1:21-cv-01565-NONE-EPG shall be consolidated for all 17 purposes, including trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a). 18 a. The Clerk is directed to file this order in each of the above-referenced case. 19 b. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk are directed to file documents under only 20 the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the lead case number 21 followed by the member case number as follows: 22 i. Lead Case No.: 1:21-cv-01373-NONE-EPG 23 ii. Member Case No.: 1:21-cv-01565-NONE-EPG 24 2. The Clerk is directed to reflect on the docket the withdrawal of the motion to dismiss 25 (ECF No. 8) and the motion for abatement (ECF No. 9). 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ 1 3. Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint on or before January 14, 2022, with 2 all Defendants’ responses due thirty (30) days thereafter. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. S| Dated: _December 13, 2021 [Jee ey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28