Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01983/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01983-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

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

KARIN BJORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF PLACER THE DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendant. _______________________________

KARIN BJORK,

Plaintiff/Petitioner,

v.

COUNTY OF PLACER THE DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendant/Real Party in Interest.

_______________________________

PLACER COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE 

COMMISSION,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-01616-MCE-EFB

ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION

No. 2:14-cv-01983-MCE-EFB

Case 2:14-cv-01983-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 04/24/15 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

Plaintiff Karin Bjork (“Plaintiff”) initiated two separate actions in this Court against 

Defendant County of Placer District Attorney’s Office (“County”) and Defendant Placer 

County Civil Service Commission (“the Commission”) (collectively “Defendants”). On 

August 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed her first civil action against Defendant County, alleging 

gender discrimination and retaliation arising from her alleged demotion and other 

adverse employment acts taken against her as of August 5, 2013. Bjork v. Cnty. of 

Placer the Dist. Attorney’s Office, 2:13-cv-01616-MCE-EFB (“Bjork I”). Then, on 

August 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second case for gender discrimination and retaliation 

against County as a result of subsequent employment actions taken against her that 

culminated, according to Plaintiff, with her constructive discharge on July 15, 2014.

Bjork v. Cnty. of Placer the Dist. Attorney’s Office, 2:14-cv-01983-MCE-EFB (“Bjork II”). 

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed her operative First Amended Complaint in

Bjork II, adding a state writ of mandate claim directed at Defendant Commission, alleging 

jurisdiction based on pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Both Bjork I and 

II arise out of alleged unlawful adverse actions taken against Plaintiff between 2012 and 

2014, while she was employed at the Placer District Attorney’s Office. On 

September 15, 2014, the Court ordered the two cases to be related. Bjork II, ECF No. 9. 

On October 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed Motions to Consolidate the two matters. Bjork I, ECF 

No. 21; Bjork II, ECF No. 13. Additionally, Defendants have filed separate Motions to 

Dismiss Bjork II (Bjork II, ECF Nos. 11, 12),1 and County has filed a Motion to Vacate, 

and/or Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order in Bjork I (Bjork I, ECF No. 20). For the 

following reasons, the Motions to Consolidate are GRANTED. The remaining Motion to 

Dismiss and Motion to Vacate are thus DENIED without prejudice as moot.2

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before 

the court involve a common question of law or fact,” the Court may consolidate the 

 1 The Commission’s Motion to Dismiss the writ of mandamus claim (Bjork II, ECF No. 12) is 

addressed by separate memorandum and order of the Court. 

2 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 

matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:14-cv-01983-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 04/24/15 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

actions. In exercising the Court's discretion, the Court “weighs the saving of time and 

effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it 

would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Consolidation 

may occur upon motion or sua sponte, and district courts have broad discretion to grant 

or deny consolidation. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987).

In its order relating the two matters, this Court found that Bjork I and Bjork II 

contained common questions of law and fact and involved the same primary defendant; 

namely, the County. Bjork II, ECF No. 9. In both actions, Plaintiff makes allegations 

against the County and complains of gender discrimination and retaliation. The main

difference between the actions is that Plaintiff alleges the adverse action was demotion 

in Bjork I, and, in Bjork II, she claims the adverse action is her alleged subsequent 

constructive discharge. 

Now, Plaintiff moves for the two cases to be consolidated for trial purposes. Yet, 

she requests that the cases be kept separate, rather than merged into a single 

proceeding, to avoid the reproduction of discovery that has already been conducted in 

the original matter and to avoid lengthy dispositive motions. Bjork II, ECF No. 13-1, at 

4-5; Bjork II, ECF No. 25 at 2. However, the Court finds this argument unconvincing. 

Any additional discovery will be resolved in a new pretrial scheduling order that will 

encompass the entire consolidated case.

3 Neither the Court nor the parties will be 

prejudicially burdened by litigating motions involving both matters in one single action. 

To the contrary, the consolidation of the cases into one single operative pleading will 

save substantial judicial time and resources and eliminate “unnecessary and duplicative 

arguments” that pertain to both matters. See Kong Meng Xiong v. City of Merced, 

No. 1:13-cv-00083-SKO, 1:13-cv-00111-SKO, 2013 WL 5493388, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 

2013).

 3 After consolidation, Plaintiff may seek a stipulation of the opposing party for additional 

depositions of parties already deposed related to the allegations set forth in Bjork II, or apply for leave of 

the court for further discovery upon a properly noticed motion. 

Case 2:14-cv-01983-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 04/24/15 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

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions to Consolidate (Bjork I, ECF No. 21; 

Bjork II, ECF No. 13) are GRANTED, and the two cases will proceed as a single action.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01983 is designated as the “master file.” Not later than thirty (30) days 

following the date this Order of Consolidation is electronically filed, Plaintiff is directed to 

file a Consolidated Complaint encompassing all claims she asserts against Defendants. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close Case No. 2:13-cv-01616. The

pretrial scheduling order currently in effect in Case No. 2:13-cv-01616 (Bjork I, ECF No. 

17) is VACATED, and Defendant County’s Motion to Vacate and/or Modify Pretrial 

Scheduling Order (Bjork I, ECF No. 20) is thus DENIED as moot. County’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Bjork II, ECF No. 11) is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled following 

submission of the Consolidated Complaint. Finally, the parties are directed to file a 

further joint status report for scheduling purposes in Case No. 2:14-cv-01983-MCE-EFB 

not later than sixty (60) days following the date a Consolidated Complaint is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-01983-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 4