MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES A. PARKER, Senior District Judge.

In their MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND STAY (Doc. 12), filed September 26, 2019, Defendants Jag Transportation, Inc. and Elisara Taito seek to consolidate this case ("Conway") under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with another case pending before the Court, Joycelynn Bahe et al. v. Jag Transportation, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-00218 JB/GBW ("Bahe"). Doc. 12. at 1. Defendants have filed a motion seeking the same relief in the Bahe case. See Bahe, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND STAY (Doc. 40). In addition, Defendants seek an order staying this case during the pendency of ongoing NTSB and State of New Mexico investigations into the August 30, 2018 tragic accident that is the subject of both lawsuits. Doc. 12 at 4.

The parties in the Bahe case do not oppose consolidation of both cases. See Bahe, Doc. 40 at 4; Conway, Doc. 12 at 4. To date, Plaintiff in the Conway case has not responded to the motion to consolidate. On October 29, 2019, Defendants filed a notice of completion of briefing in which they state that Plaintiff did not contact them to request an extension to file a response. See Bahe, NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF BRIEFING ON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (Doc. 41). Under this district's Local Rule 7.1(b), "[t]he failure of a party to file and serve a response in opposition to a motion within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes consent to grant the motion." D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(b). The Court will therefore construe Plaintiff's lack of a response to the motion to consolidate in the Conway case as consent to its granting.

Notwithstanding the Conway Plaintiff's failure to respond, the Court finds that it is appropriate to consolidate both cases under Rule 42. Rule 42(a)(2) provides that the Court may consolidate cases if they "involve a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). Such is the case here. Both cases arise out of an August 30, 2018 accident involving a Greyhound bus in which the Bahe and Conway plaintiffs were passengers and a commercial truck operated by Defendant Taito and owned by Defendant Jag. The Bahe case also names Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC ("Bridgestone") as a defendant. Apart from the claims against Bridgestone in the Bahe case, the plaintiffs in both cases assert the same claims against the other defendants: negligence against Defendants Taito and Jag; vicarious liability against Defendant Jag; and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Taito and Jag. See Conway, COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES (Doc. 1-1); Bahe, PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, PERSONAL INJURIES, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES (Doc. 12). In light of this overlap in the parties and the causes of action, the Court concludes that consolidation is appropriate.

In their motion, Defendants also seek to stay the Conway case during the pendency of the NTSB and State of New Mexico investigations into the accident. Doc. 12 at 4. The Court notes that the Bahe case has been stayed since July 26, 2019 for this same reason. See Bahe, STIPULATED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JAG TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM BRIEF TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS (Doc. 39). The Court will stay the Conway case during the pendency of the NTSB and state investigations. The parties are directed to notify the Court within 10 days of the completion of the NTSB and state investigations so that the stay may be lifted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: