Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07000/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07000-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE E. STONE, Santa Clara 

County Assessor; JEANETTE TONINI, 

Senior Assessment Clerk; and COUNTY OF 

SANTA CLARA, 

Defendants.

___________________________________

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE E. STONE, Santa Clara 

County Assessor; JEANETTE TONINI, 

Senior Assessment Clerk; and COUNTY OF 

SANTA CLARA, 

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF 

Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF

SUA SPONTE ORDER

CONSOLIDATING CASES

The Court has reviewed the complaints in Case Nos. 19-cv-07000-BLF and 19-cv-07231-

BLF and sua sponte consolidates the two above-captioned actions brought by Plaintiff Kuang-Bao 

P. Ou-Young against Defendants County of Santa Clara, County Assessor Lawrence E. Stone, and 

Senior Assessment Clerk Jeanette Tonini. In both actions, Plaintiff asserts that his spouse 

transferred her interest in their residence to Plaintiff; the County assessor’s office unlawfully 

terminated Plaintiff’s homeowner’s exemption in order to raise Plaintiff’s property taxes; and the 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 28 Filed 12/05/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

County assessor’s office has declined to restore Plaintiff’s homeowner’s exemption since 

September 10, 2019. The only material difference between the two actions is that Plaintiff named 

District Judge Edward J. Davila as a defendant in Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, but not as a 

defendant in Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF. However, Judge Davila has been dismissed from Case 

No. 19-cv-07000-BLF. The two actions now assert essentially the same claims against the same 

defendants.

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . 

consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad discretion under this 

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 

for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to 

consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential 

for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 28, 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Because Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF and Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF are based on the 

same facts, and assert substantially the same claims against the same defendants, the Court finds 

that consolidation of the actions would further judicial economy. Consolidation will not cause 

delay or prejudice to the parties, as both cases are at a very early stage. Accordingly, Case No. 

19-cv-07000-BLF and Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF are HEREBY CONSOLIDATED. The 

consolidated action shall proceed under Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, and Case No. 19-cv-07231-

BLF shall be closed.

 IV. ORDER

(1) Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF and Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF are HEREBY

CONSOLIDATED;

(2) The consolidated action shall proceed under Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF; and

(3) Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF shall be closed.

 

Dated: December 5, 2019 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 28 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 2