Opinion
1:14-cv-523 LJO-GSA 1:14-cv-646 LJO-GSA
06-10-2014
DANIEL PHELPS, Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETH VAN BIBBER, Defendant. DANIEL PHELPS, Plaintiff, v. DANA MICHAEL BRIDGES, Defendant
ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
Plaintiff, Daniel Phelps filed a complaint in case number 1:14-cv-523 LJO-GSA on April 14, 2014, and another complaint in case number 1:14-cv-646 on May 1, 2014. Both of the cases involve allegations against Elizabeth Van Bibber, an insurance agent for Progressive Insurance Company and contend that she is illegally filing restraining orders against Plaintiff by committing perjury.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides that "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a)(2). "The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district." Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to consolidate cases, a court should balance the interest of judicial convenience against "any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause." Huene v. United States, 743 F. 2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
These actions contain identical allegations involving the same defendant. Therefore, the Court finds that consolidation will aid in judicial efficiency and that consolidation will not cause delay, confusion, or prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk's Office is directed to consolidate Phelps v. Van Bibber, No. 1:14-cv-523-LJO-GSA and Phelps v. Bridges, No. 1:14-cv-646 LJO- GSA;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Phelps v. Elizabeth Van Bibber, No. 1:14-cv-523-LJO-GSA shall be designated as the lead case; and
3. The parties are instructed to file all documents in Phelps v. Elizabeth Van Bibber, No. 1:14-cv-523 LJO-GSA. Documents not filed in the lead case may not be considered.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE