Filed: Jun. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On June 12, 2017, counsel in the above-captioned cases (1) Jabir Singh et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM (" Singh case"); (2) Nicholas E. Rich v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM (" Rich case"); (3) Latrina Phillips; et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC; et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM (" Phillips case") filed a stip
Summary: ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On June 12, 2017, counsel in the above-captioned cases (1) Jabir Singh et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM (" Singh case"); (2) Nicholas E. Rich v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM (" Rich case"); (3) Latrina Phillips; et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC; et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM (" Phillips case") filed a stipu..
More
ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
On June 12, 2017, counsel in the above-captioned cases (1) Jabir Singh et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM ("Singh case"); (2) Nicholas E. Rich v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM ("Rich case"); (3) Latrina Phillips; et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC; et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM ("Phillips case") filed a stipulation seeking to consolidate the third related case, the Phillips case, with the two previously related and consolidated cases. (Doc. No. 88 at 3-4.)
Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." In exercising the court's discretion, the court "weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause." Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the court finds that the Singh, Rich, and Phillips actions involve the same or similar parties, claims and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Good cause appearing and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM will be consolidated with the previously consolidated cases: Case No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM andNo. 1:15-cv-00164-DAD-BAM.
Accordingly,
1) The above-referenced related cases Singh, Rich, and Phillips are consolidated for all purposes, including trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a);
2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in the Singh, Rich, and Phillips cases;
3) Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the lead case number followed by the member case number as follows:
Lead Case: 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM
Member Case: 1:16-cv-01900-DAD-BAM
Member Case: 1:17-cv-00164-DAD-BAM
IT IS SO ORDERED.
