Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01071/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01071-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Dkt. #6; Dkt. #1 (No. CV-08-0945-PHX-ROS).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Estrada and Carman Estrada,

husband and wife, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of San Luis, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1071-PHX-DGC (lead)

No. CV-08-0945-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 42.1(a)(1)

of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants City of San Luis, Rafael Torres, Juan

Carlos Escamilla, and Gabriel Jimenez move the Court to consolidate the above captioned

cases. Dkt. #86. These rules permit a district court to consolidate cases which, in the court’s

judgment, involve common questions of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (“When

actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, . . . it may

order all the actions consolidated.”). The Court possesses “broad discretion” under Federal

Rule 42(a) “to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v.

United States Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir.1989).

Here, Plaintiffs have not objected to the motion. See Dkt. #86 at 2 (“Plaintiffs do not

oppose consolidating these cases.”). It is therefore undisputed that the two actions involve

common legal and/or factual questions. The Court’s review of the relevant complaints1

Case 2:07-cv-01071-DGC Document 89 Filed 07/08/08 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 -

confirms that common questions of fact are present, though the second complaint presents

different and fewer causes of action. The Court therefore concludes that consolidation of the

cases is appropriate, as doing so would be efficient and in the interest of justice and there is

no evidence of any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause. See Huene v.

United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The motion to consolidate (Dkt. #86) is granted.

2. The clerk is directed to transfer Case No. CV-08-0945-PHX-ROS to this Court

and consolidate it with Case No. CV-07-1071-PHX-DGC.

DATED this 7th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01071-DGC Document 89 Filed 07/08/08 Page 2 of 2