Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01793/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01793-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PC Healthcare Enterprises, Inc., dba

Health Temp, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Hospital and Healthcare

Association, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-1793-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court in this closed case is Movants Jane Doe (“Doe”)

and Rhonda Roe’s (“Roe”) Motion for Consolidation, Transfer, and Entry of Proposed

Pretrial Order No. 1. The Motion is fully briefed. The Court considers the papers submitted

and issues the following Order. 

Doe and Roe seek to consolidate Doe v. Arizona Hospital & Healthcare Assoc. et al.,

No. 07-1292-SRB and Roe v. Arizona Hospital and Heathcare Assoc., et al, No. 07-1293-

SRB, and then transfer the consolidated case to this Court as part of the now-dismissed case,

PC Healthcare Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Assoc. et. seq., No. 05-

1793-MHM. Both Doe and Roe are cases presently pending before the Honorable Susan R.

Bolton. This Court’s case, PC Healthcare Enterprises, was dismissed with prejudice on

Case 2:05-cv-01793-MHM Document 238 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

August 16, 2007. Movants assert that it is in the interests of judicial economy to consolidate

Doe and Roe and then transfer the consolidated case to this Court. 

Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that:

When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before

the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue

in the actions; it may order the actions consolidated; and it may make such

orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs

or delay. 

All claims and issues sharing common aspects of law or fact may be consolidated to

avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). Consolidation is inappropriate,

however, if it leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). Local Rule 42.1 calls for consolidation when there will be “substantial

duplication of labor if heard by different Judges. . . .” 

The Court is not persuaded that consolidation of Doe and Roe, both pending before

the Judge Bolton, with PC Healthcare, the now-dismissed case before this Court, would lead

to judicial efficiency. This is especially true in light of the fact that the case before this Court

previously has been dismissed and because this Court did not rule on any substantive motions

before the case was dismissed. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Movants’ Motion to Consolidate and Transfer (Doc. 232) is

denied. 

DATED this 10th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01793-MHM Document 238 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 2