Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00728/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00728-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DAVID NOEL, 

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. 07-00728 WBS KJM

vs.

CITY OF OROVILLE; LIZ ORDER RE: MOTION TO

EHRENSTROM; SHARON ATTEBERRY; CONSOLIDATE

ERIC TEITELMAN; and DOES 1 

through 1000, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

 /

CHRISTINE LASIK,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. 07-01714 WBS KJM

vs.

CITY OF OROVILLE, PAT GRIFFINCLARK; LIZ EHRENSTROM; SHARON

ATTEBERRY, ERIC TEITELMAN; and

DOES 1 through 1000, INCLUSIVE, 

Defendants. /

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS.

 /

----oo0oo----

Case 2:07-cv-00728-WBS -KJM Document 54 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 6
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 Lasik also named Pat Griffen-Clark in her complaint;

however, it appears that only the City has been served and filed

an answer in Lasik’s case.

2

Plaintiffs David Noel and Christine Lasik filed

separate disability discrimination and failure to accommodate

actions against defendants City of Oroville (“City”), Liz

Ehrenstrom, Sharon Atteberry, and Eric Teitelman1

 based on

discrimination they allegedly suffered during their employment

with the City. Defendants now move to consolidate the abovereferenced actions.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Noel began working for the City in 1988 and, beginning

in January 1997, served as the City’s Fire Marshal and Building

Official. (Noel’s Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 12.) In late

2002, however, Noel sustained an intraventricular hemorrhage to

his brain. (Id. at ¶ 13.) He eventually returned to work, but

continued to suffer from frequent headaches and short term memory

loss as a result of his brain injury. (Id. at ¶ 14.) 

Beginning in October 2003, defendants allegedly began

discriminating against and harassing Noel because of his

condition and have failed to make accommodations for him. (Id.

at ¶¶ 16, 20.) For example, defendants have required Noel to

memorialize personal information, keep a daily log of his

activities, take fitness for duty examinations, forgo staff

support, and undertake an increased workload. (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 19

22, 24, 26, 28-29.) After Noel returned from a forced

administrative leave, defendants also relocated him from the City

Hall–-where all other city employees work–-to the State Theater. 

Case 2:07-cv-00728-WBS -KJM Document 54 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 6
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 Noel also alleges a claim for deprivation of a property

interest pursuant to § 1983. 

3

(Id. at ¶¶ 30, 33.) 

Lasik, who is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, began

working as a Program Analyst for the City in 1984. (Lasik Compl.

at ¶¶ 3, 13-14.) In May 2005, defendants allegedly began

discriminating against her and subjecting her to a hostile work

environment because of her condition and because she had

questioned certain reporting documents the City used for various

grant programs. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Lasik also alleges that

defendants have failed to make accommodations for her, required

her to take fitness for duty examinations and personality

assessments, interfered with her disability leave, denied her a

new position, and deprived her of necessary supplies. (Id. at ¶¶

16-19, 21-22, 24.) Upon Lasik’s return to work after defendants

had required her to work from home, defendants also relocated her

from the City Hall to the State Theater--where the only other

employee working there was Noel. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.) 

The same counsel represents both plaintiffs and, in

their complaints, both allege violations of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300, and

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t

Code §§ 12900-12996.2 In both cases, the city asserts

counterclaims for declaratory judgments to establish that

plaintiffs are not covered by the ADA or FEHA.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a),

defendants now move to consolidate Noel and Lasik’s cases.

Neither Noel nor Lasik oppose defendants’ motion so long as the

Case 2:07-cv-00728-WBS -KJM Document 54 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 6
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

3 In their joint status report, Noel and defendants

agreed to an enlarged time of ten to eighteen hours for

depositions. (Noel’s Joint Status Report 3-4.) Lasik and

defendants also agreed to an enlarged time of fourteen to

eighteen hours for depositions. (Lasik’s Joint Status Report 3.) 

This Order does not alter these agreements between the parties. 

4

lengths of their depositions are not extended.3 (Noel’s

Clarification of Non-Opp’n to Mot. to Consolidate; Lasik’s

Clarification of Non-Opp’n to Mot. to Consolidate.) 

II. Discussion

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a),

“[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law

or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions . . . .” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Once a court finds that the actions

“involve a common question of law or fact,” Rule 42(a) vests the

court with broad discretion to determine whether to consolidate

the cases. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent.

Dist. Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Modesto

Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez, Nos. 06-00453, 06-00308, 2007 WL

915228, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2007) (reiterating the two

steps of a Rule 42(a) inquiry). In exercising its discretion,

the court must balance “the interest of judicial convenience

against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused

by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. Transwitch Corp.,

303 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). 

This court has previously observed that Noel and

Lasik’s cases “involve substantially identical legal and factual

claims by the plaintiffs (i.e., disability discrimination and

failure to accommodate) and by the City (i.e., that neither

employee is covered by the statutes and neither employee is

Case 2:07-cv-00728-WBS -KJM Document 54 Filed 02/15/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

entitled to the accommodations they demand).” (Oct. 10, 2007

Order 2:3-4.) Rule 42(a), therefore, permits this court to

consolidate the cases. 

The liability questions in these two cases are not

identical. Nevertheless, primarily because defendants seek and

neither plaintiff opposes consolidation, the court will exercise

its discretion to consolidate the cases in the interests of

convenience and economy to the parties and the court. As both

plaintiffs’ non-opposition to defendants’ motion to consolidate

suggests, consolidating the cases will likely increase

convenience and reduce expenses for all parties. See Burnett v.

Rowzee, Nos. 07-641, 07-393, 07-591, 2007 WL 4191991, at *2 (C.D.

Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) (considering the “potential burden on the

parties[] [and] witnesses” that consolidating cases will cause)

(citation omitted). 

Lastly, while consolidating the cases will require the

court to modify its Pretrial (Scheduling) Orders, the resulting

delay in both cases is not substantial enough to outweigh the

judicial convenience that consolidating them will facilitate. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to

consolidate civil case Nos. S-07-00728 and S-07-01714 be, and the

same hereby is, GRANTED; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Civ. No. S-07-00728 is

designated as the “master file”; (2) the Clerk of the Court is

directed to copy the complaint, answer, counterclaim, and answer

to the counterclaim in Civ. No. S-07-01714 and to place said

copies in the “master file”; (3) the Clerk of the Court is

directed to administratively close Civ. No. S-07-01714; and (4)

Case 2:07-cv-00728-WBS -KJM Document 54 Filed 02/15/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

the parties are directed to file all future pleadings only in

Civ. No. S-07-00728; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s previously

issued Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Orders be, and the same

hereby are, amended only as follows: 1) the parties shall

simultaneously disclose experts and produce reports in accordance

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by July 27, 2008;

2) the parties shall complete all discovery by February 27, 2009;

3) the parties shall file all motions, except motions for

continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency

applications, by August 12, 2009; 4) the Final Pretrial

Conference is set for December 14, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.; and 5) the

jury trial is set for February 9, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. 

DATED: February 14, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-00728-WBS -KJM Document 54 Filed 02/15/08 Page 6 of 6