Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00647/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00647-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

- 1 - 11-CV-2212-MMA-RBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVIA ANDERSON, an individual, on

behalf of herself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2212-MMA-RBB

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

CASES

[Doc. No. 40]

[Consolidated Case No. 11-CV-0647-

MMA(RBB)]

vs.

OFFICE DEPOT, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50

inclusive,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Sylvia Anderson and Defendant Office Depot, Inc. submitted a joint motion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to consolidate this action with Eyad O. Akel, an individual, on

behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Office Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation

and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 11-cv-0647-MMA (RBB) (“the Akel action”).

A review of the complaints in the above-mentioned cases suggest consolidation is

appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2). “[T]he threshold requirement for

consolidation is whether the actions involve common facts or legal issues.” United States v.

County of Sacramento, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34111 *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005) (citing Yousefi

v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1064-65 (C.D. Cal. 1999)). 

Case 3:11-cv-00647-MMA-RBB Document 35 Filed 10/04/11 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 - 11-CV-2212-MMA-RBB

In the present case, the parties aver that the Anderson action is related to the Akel action,

as the actions allege substantially the same facts, purport to represent virtually the same putative

class, and assert the same legal claims against the same defendants. Therefore, consolidation

would preserve judicial and party resources and would prevent potential conflicting results and

adjudications.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion to

consolidate and ORDERS as follows:

1. This action is consolidated with the Akel action, Case No. 11-cv-0647-MMA

(RRB), for all purposes.

2. The Clerk of the Court promptly shall take all reasonable and necessary action to

consolidate the cases. This Order and all further proceedings in the consolidated action shall be

docketed under Case No. 11-cv-0647-MMA (RBB). 

3. Plaintiffs shall file an amended consolidated complaint on or before 

October 11, 2011.

4. Defendant shall file an amended motion to dismiss on or before November 1, 2011.

5. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the motion to dismiss, on or before 

November 21, 2011. 

6. Defendant shall file its reply, if any, on or before November 28, 2011.

7. The hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby set for December 5, 2011

at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 4, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00647-MMA-RBB Document 35 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 2