Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01998/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01998-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 - 08cv1998

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANCHO AGRICOLA SANTA MONICA,

S. de R.L. de C.V.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1998 JM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT

vs. PREJUDICE

WESTAR SEEDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Defendant Westar Seeds International, Inc. (“Westar”) moves to consolidate this

action with a related action, Martin Acosta v. Westar Seeds International, Inc., Case No.

09cv0706 JM(JMA) (the “Acosta action”). Plaintiff Rancho Agricola Santa Monica,

S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Agricola”) opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1),

this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth

below, the motion to consolidate is denied without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On October 28, 2008 Agricola commenced this diversity action alleging claims

arising from its purchase of onion seeds from Westar. On April 8, 2009, Agricola’s

counsel, representing another plaintiff, Martin Acosta, filed another diversity action

alleging claims arising from the purchase of onion seeds from Westar. 

On May 18, 2009 the court low numbered the Acosta action to the present action.

Case 3:08-cv-01998-JM-WVG Document 39 Filed 09/29/09 Page 1 of 4
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 - 08cv1998

Following a case management conference on May 7, 2009, Magistrate Judge Adler

issued coordinated case management schedules in both cases with the same pretrial

conference and trial dates. The parties continue to conduct coordinated discovery in

both actions.

The following briefly describes the nature of the two actions.

The Present Action, No. 08cv1998

Plaintiff Agricola alleges that in March 2008 it purchased 300 pounds of

“Ringmaster” variety onion seeds from Westar for planting at Agricola’s farm in

Mexico. (Compl. ¶5). Agricola planted 130 acres with the Westar seeds and, before

harvest, discovered that the seeds were not the “Ringmaster” variety but “seeds from

a non-bulbing variety of onion mixed in with seeds of another, unknown variety of

bulbing onion.” (Compl. ¶8, 9). Agricola later discovered that “none of the onions that

grew from the seed purchased from Defendant were ‘Ringmaster’ onions.” (Compl.

¶11). Agricola alleges damages of about $4,000,000. 

Based upon the above generally described conduct, Plaintiff alleges eight claims

for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of implied

warranty of merchantability, (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular

purpose, (5) products liability, (6) negligence, (7) negligent misrepresentation, and (8)

fraud.

The Related Action, 09cv0706

Plaintiff Acosta alleges that in March 2008 he purchased 150 pounds of

“Ringmaster” variety onion seeds from Westar for planting at his farm in Mexico.

(Compl. ¶5). Acosta planted 62 acres with the Westar seeds and, before harvest,

discovered that the seeds were not the “Ringmaster” variety but “seeds from a nonbulbing variety of onion mixed in with seeds of another, unknown variety of bulbing

onion.” (Compl. ¶¶8, 9). Acosta alleges that it was later determined that “onions that

grew from the onion plants purchased from Defendant were not ‘Ringmaster’ onions,

and that the seeds were defective.” (Compl. ¶10). 

Case 3:08-cv-01998-JM-WVG Document 39 Filed 09/29/09 Page 2 of 4
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 - 08cv1998

Based upon the above generally described conduct, Acosta alleges the same eight

claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of implied

warranty of merchantability, (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular

purpose, (5) products liability, (6) negligence, (7) negligent misrepresentation, and (8)

fraud.

DISCUSSION

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If actions before

the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing

or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue

any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” The primary purpose of the rule

is to promote trial court efficiency and avoid the danger of inconsistent adjudications.

See E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998). While considerations

of judicial economy and convenience play an important role in deciding whether to

consolidate two actions for trial, the paramount concern is whether the parties are

afforded a fair and impartial trial. 

As a threshold issue, the court notes that the term “consolidation” for purposes

of Rule 42(a) has several different meanings. Wright Miller; Federal Practice and

Procedure: Civil 2d §2382. The majority of courts hold that consolidation does not

merge the separate lawsuits into a single consolidated action. Schwarzer, Tashima

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, §16.140 (2008). In this district two

different procedures apply to related actions. First, the low number rule of L.R. 40.1

generally provides for the coordinated treatment of actions that arise from substantially

identical transactions, involve the same parties or property, or call for resolution of the

same or substantially identical issues of law and fact. L.R. 40.1(b). Here, the Acosta

action has been low numbered to the present case. As a consequence, coordinated

discovery and case management has already occurred - - the same district and

magistrate judge hear all matters, Magistrate Adler has conducted coordinated case

management conferences, the parties have coordinated discovery, discovery produced

Case 3:08-cv-01998-JM-WVG Document 39 Filed 09/29/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 08cv1998

in one case will be used in the other, and both actions are subject to the same case

management and scheduling order. Under the low number rule, substantial efficiencies

and coordination have already occurred.

The second procedure provides for consolidation of two actions as if they were

the same case. Where two related actions present the same factual and legal issues,

consolidation provides that the two cases proceed under a single case number. Here,

at the present time, the court declines to consolidate the two actions for a single trial as

requested by Westar. Agricola identifies significant differences between the two

actions. Agricola represents that discovery has revealed that the onion seeds purchased

from Westar and sold to it and plaintiff Acosta originated from different batches or lots.

(Ayers Decl. ¶¶2-4). Agricola also identifies that the damages arising from the batches

of onion seed sold to it and plaintiff Acosta are different and could potentially confuse

the jury. The potentially significant legal and factual differences between the two

actions caution against the premature consolidation of the two actions.

In sum, the court denies the motion to consolidate the two actions for trial

without prejudice. As the parties complete discovery and move towards trial,

calendared for October 25, 2010, additional discovery may reveal that trial efficiencies

warrant consolidation for trial. In the event discovery reveals that significant

efficiencies will be obtained through consolidation of the two actions, Westar may

renew its motion to consolidate the two actions for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01998-JM-WVG Document 39 Filed 09/29/09 Page 4 of 4