Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court may consolidate actions 

involving a common question of law or fact, and consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes 

of judicial economy and convenience. The Ninth Circuit explained that the Court “has broad 

discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. 

v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In 

determining whether to consolidate actions, the Court weighs the interest of judicial convenience 

TARA GARLICK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01051 - LJO - JLT

ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS

ADRIANA DOMINGUEZ, as guardian ad 

litem for J.S.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00419 LJO JLT

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 64 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 2
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

against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, 

Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 

Here, the plaintiffs’ factual allegations in the above-captioned actions are based upon a single 

occurrence. Moreover, the minor J.S. is a nominal defendant in the Garlick matter and, indisputably, 

only one action for wrongful death may be pursued. Cross v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 60 Cal.2d 

690, 694 (1964). Consolidation serves the purposes of minimizing judicial resources, and the Court 

anticipates little risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice if the matters are consolidated. Consequently, 

consolidation is appropriate. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. These actions SHALL be consolidated for all purposes, including trial; and

2. The parties are instructed that all future filings SHALL use the caption set forth 

above in the Garlick matter including the case no. 1:13-cv-01051 LJO JLT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 64 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 2