Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00161/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00161-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LASIC, JR., No. 2:05-cv-0161-MCE-DAD

an individual,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER CONSOLIDATING RELATED

CASES

DANA MORENO; and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

DAVID LASIC, JR., an No. 2:05-cv-2068-MCE-DAD

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendants.

______________________________/

By Order dated November 3, 2005, these cases were deemed

related in accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 83-

123(a). 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00161-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 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

2

By stipulation filed with the Court on January 6, 2006, counsel

for all parties in both actions have agreed that both cases

should be consolidated on grounds given the common factual and

legal issues they present. Defendants United States of American

and Dana Moreno have now moved for consolidation pursuant to that

stipulation in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

42(a), which provides in pertinent part as follows:

“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 of the matters in issue in the actions;

it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make

such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to

avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

 

The purpose of consolidation under Rule 42(a), where cases share

such common questions of law or fact, is to enhance trial 

court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of

proceedings and effort. See, e.g., Enterprise Bank v. Saettele,

21 F.3d 233, 235-36 (8 Cir. 1994); E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 th

F.3d 543, 551 (8 Cir. 1998). th

Both related matters arise from Plaintiff’s claim that he

was falsely charged, and arrested, for alleged witness tampering

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Based on identical

facts, Plaintiff’s initially filed lawsuit (No. 2:05-cv-0161-MCEDAD) asserts claims against Defendant Moreno for violations of

the Fourth Amendment pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his subsequent action (No. 2:05-

cv-2068-MCE-DAD), Plaintiff goes on to assert claims under the

Federal Tort Claims Act on theories of intentional and/or

negligent infliction of emotional distress in addition to

allegations of false arrest and malicious prosecution. 

Case 2:05-cv-00161-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

Given the parties’ agreement that consolidation is

appropriate, and following the Court’s own determination that

consolidation will promote clarity, efficiency and the avoidance

of confusion and prejudice given the above-enumerated common

nucleus of operative facts, Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate is

hereby GRANTED. The Court, in its discretion, may order 1

consolidation under those circumstances. See Johnson v. Celotex

Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (2d Cir. 1990).

Both actions are consequently consolidated, for all purposes

including trial. The lead case in this consolidated action shall

be Lasic v. Moreno, Case No. 2:05-cv-0161-MCE-DAD. All dates

established by the Court’s Pretrial Status (Scheduling) Order

filed December 6, 2005 in Case No. 2:05-cv-0161-MCE-DAD shall

remain in effect and will apply to this consolidated matter. 

Dates previously assigned to Plaintiff’s other action (No. 2:05-

cv-2068-MCE-DAD) are hereby vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00161-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 3