Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00661-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LORRAINE SERVANTES, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al, 

 Defendants. 

 ROCIO ALVARADO, guardian ad 

 litem for A.D.L., a minor, and A.G.L., 

 a minor, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

 Defendants 

Case No. 2:07−CV−01492−FCD−JFM 

Case No.: 2:07-CV-00661-GEB-DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING 

CASES FOR ALL PURPOSES 

[FRCP 42(a)] 

Date: March 3, 2008 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Dept: 2 

Before the Hon. Frank C. Damrell 

Robert Masuda 146377 

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT MASUDA 

1541 Corporate Way, Suite 200 

Sacramento, CA 95831 

Phone: (916) 391-3400; Fax: (916) 391-3499 

Kelly T. Smith 196821 

THE SMITH FIRM 

1541 Corporate Way, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95831 

Phone: (916) 442-2019; Fax: (916) 442-0220 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

LOARRAINE SERVANTES 

Case 2:07-cv-00661-FCD-JFM Document 22 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Servantez v. County of Sacramento et al., case no. 2:07-cv-01492 and 

Alvarado v. County of Sacramento, case no. 2:07-cv-00661 (“the cases”) are pending before 

this court; 

WHEREAS, the cases share common facts, in that they both arise from the death of 

David Lopez, who killed himself while in custody at the Sacramento County Jail; 

WHEREAS, the cases share common questions of law, in that they both allege that the 

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the deprivation of David Lopez’s rights; 

WHEREAS, consolidation of these cases for all purposes is appropriate under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) because the cases share common facts and questions of law, 

and consolidation would not prejudice the rights of the parties; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that consolidation of the cases would serve the court’s 

interests in judicial economy and avoiding the risk of inconsistent or duplicative orders in the 

cases; 

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by plaintiffs and defendants, through 

their respective counsel of record, as follows: 

The parties to the action of Servantes v. County of Sacramento, et al., case no. 2:07-cv01492 and Alvarado v. County of Sacramento, et al, case no. 2:07−cv−00661, by and through 

their respective attorneys, stipulate to the granting of the motion to consolidate the two actions 

for all purposes. 

DATE: __________________________________________ 

KELLY T. SMITH 

Attorney for Plaintiff Lorraine Servantes in 

Servantes v. County 

DATE: __________________________________________ 

KELLY T. SMITH 

Attorney for Alvarado, guardian ad litem for minor Doe 

defendants in Alvarado v. County

Case 2:07-cv-00661-FCD-JFM Document 22 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES 

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation to consolidate cases Servantes v. County of Sacramento, et 

al., case no. 2:07-CV-01492 and Alvarado v. County of Sacramento, et al, case no. 

2:07−CV−00661, entered into by the parties through their attorneys, it is ordered that the two 

cases be consolidated for all purposes under the case number 2:07-CV-0661. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 29, 2008 

Case 2:07-cv-00661-FCD-JFM Document 22 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3