Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01162-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Court may consolidate actions involving a common question of law or fact, and 

consolidation is proper when it serves the purposes of judicial economy and convenience. Fed.R.Civ.P.

42(a). The Ninth Circuit explained that the Court “has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate 

cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. United States District Court for the 

JOHN SHARP, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ERNEST DEAN SOEST, et al,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

_______________________________________

DEAN SOEST,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CARGO AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01162 JLT

ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00074 JLT

Case 1:15-cv-01162-JLT Document 56 Filed 02/25/16 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

Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether to consolidate 

actions, the Court weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, 

and prejudice caused by consolidation. Southwest Marine, Inc., v. Triple A. Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. 

Supp. 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

Here, the claims raised in the Soest matter implicate claims for setoff sought by the Soest

Defendants in the Sharp matter. Both cases involve similar parties and none of the parties object to 

consolidation of these matters. Consolidation would serve the purposes of minimizing judicial 

resources, and the Court anticipates little risk of delay, confusion, or prejudice if the matters are 

consolidated. Consequently, consolidation is appropriate. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 

1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. These actions SHALL be consolidated for all purposes, including trial; and

2. The parties are instructed that all future filings SHALL use the caption set forth above in 

the Sharp matter and SHALL use case number 1:15-cv-01162 JLT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01162-JLT Document 56 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 2