No. 1:18-cv-03013-SAB No. 1:18-cv-03224-SAB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court are Defendants' Amended Motion to Consolidate, filed in 1:18-cv-03013-SAB, ECF No. 44, and Motion to Consolidate, filed in 1:18-cv-3224-SAB, ECF No. 20.
Defendants ask that these two cases be consolidated to avoid unnecessary cost, delay and duplication. The Court finds that Defendants have established that it is appropriate to consolidate these two cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
(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.
Plaintiff Roy Cheesman filed a response in which he appears to ask the Court to consolidate this case with a state court case and/or to order Defendants to remove that case to the Eastern District of Washington. The Court declines to grant Plaintiff's request.
There is a pending Motion for Summary Judgment that Defendants filed in 1:18-cv-03013-SAB, ECF No. 25. Previously, the Court struck the hearing on the motion to permit Plaintiff Roy Cheesman the opportunity to respond to the motion to consolidate. The Court resets the hearing to August 9, 2019 without oral argument. The following notice is provided to Plaintiffs regarding Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment:
Defendants have made a motion for summary judgment in which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact—that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56[c], that contradict the facts shown in Defendants' declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff Roy Cheesman is instructed that the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, applies to both cases. Thus, if the Court grants the motion, his case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendants' Amended Motion to Consolidate, 1:18-cv-03013-SAB, ECF No. 44, is GRANTED.
2. Defendants' Motion to Consolidate, 1:18-cv-3224, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED.
3. All future pleadings shall be filed under Case No. 1:18-cv-03013-SAB, unless the Court directs otherwise. Case No. 1:18-cv-03224-SAB shall be administratively closed.
4. The hearing on Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment, 1:18-cv-03013-SAB, ECF No. 25, is set for August 9, 2019.
5. Plaintiff Roy Cheesman is permitted, but not required, to file an opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or he may rely on the briefing filed by Ruth Anne Conde Cheesman, ECF Nos. 39, 40, to oppose the motion. Any opposition must be filed on or before July 9, 2019.
6. Defendant's reply, if any, must be filed on or before July 18, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and forward copies to Plaintiffs and counsel.
DATED this 12th day of June 2019.
Stanley A. Bastian
United States District Judge